UKC

Any surveyors out there?

I've just had a Level 3 RICS survey on the house I am selling (buyer comissioned). It was a unique opportunity to see what they actually do (whilst pretending to work).

They were here for just 40 minutes (3 bed semi). Can you really do a detailed survey with only spending 40 minutes on site?

I got the impression they were just taking photos. Presumably to study later but surely the best time to study is in person on site?

Camera on a pole for checking gutter, that was good. Wish I'd cleaned them beforehand. Doh!

Damp meter. Hmmm, pretty sure that's not going to give any useful readings. 

Didn't spend any time in the loft. Easily accessible, all boarded out, but only put their head through the opening to take a picture.

I've always been a proponent of surveys. But apparently only 9% of buyers get one:

https://www.leahough.co.uk/latest-news/fewer-than-10-of-buyers-opt-for-home....

I'm pretty confident I can spot most major issues on a viewing, but still opt to get one as they have more freedom to explore and more time to do so. A second opinion is always useful. But based on what I saw maybe it's not always worth it unless you are going to pay top dollar for a highly skilled and recommended surveyor.

Interested to know if I'm being overly critical of this surveyor.

I fear is that the report is now going to be filled with "possible", "might", "may", "could" as liability covering which will freak the buyer out because the surveyor didn't do a detailed enough job to find the facts.

Most people get the basic survey done to satisfy the mortgage, with the most important bit coming close to the top of the report being the market value.

I've found them to be pretty useless other than for what you said, they have a title of trust and get to spend a bit more time and poke around a bit more than if you were looking with an estate agent hovering around. 

Maybe they're useful for people who are less experienced and confident around buying and DIY topics.

I was actually around for the Mortgage valuation survey also.

It's not really a house survey as such. It's more of a, is there a house, is it habitable, is it possibly worth what they say. Honestly, I think between streetview and the estate agent listing, most houses could get this level of confidence without even visiting the property.

I think many people assume the mortgage survey is more than it is.

As for the Home Buyers Survey (RICS level 2) and the Structural Survey (RICS level 3) I suspect we have an entire industry that is rinsing buyers of money and giving them a false sense of security in return. I have no doubt there will be many great surveyors out there, but I think the industry needs a shake up.

I think surveyors have too much liability, and as a result fill their report with standard text cop out clauses that erode the service you get. What I want is their honest opinion. They are reluctant to give that on damp causes for example as it might be wrong and you could sue them.

They push electrical and damp issues to other specialists. Damp specialist don't really exist so what are you paying the RICS surveyor for when damp is the number 1 issue.

I think RICS level 3 surveys should have to include everything, they should give their opinion but you can't sue them if they are wrong. But you can sue them for missing something obvious.

Some friends of mine had a problem with knotweed which wasn’t picked up by the surveyor. However, it turned out that it was very clear in the historic Google street images, so I think there’s something to be said for Google-based property research. 

I sold my house to a chap who had a level 3 survey done (if it was called the same thing in 2005). I had pointed out (to the buyer not surveyor) everything I knew was wrong with the house including poor ventilation, some timbers in the roof needing replaced and poor drainage leading to water ingress in the kitchen. None of these issues were mentioned on the report.

Sounds dubious. In the same position as you, a surveyor was around 3-4 hours and looked at everything in detail. 

This is what I was expecting. Feel a bit sorry for the buyer, they probably forked out £1000 for it, and will have no idea what they really got for it.

I paid for one of those once (my own one at request of mortgage in addition to any sellers one) and the surveyor failed to notice the house needed rewiring (an original *not retro*  bakerlite light switch mounted on wood should've been a red flag) it had a broken window upstairs at the front of house he didn't notice, they never went in loft. The survey was barely done let alone thorough, however the disclaimers on the survey accuracy were very thorough 🤣

When we bought our current house, the survey that the seller had done was well dodgy looking.  For a start, it was described as a bungalow when it has 4 bedrooms and two bathrooms upstairs.  

Im not convinced the surveyor even visited the place.  It was a 9 year old property and had been well looked after, so I didn’t have any concerns.  Had it been an older property, I would have commissioned another, by a different surveyor.

Long retired RICS Surveyor here

I find your post pretty shocking, but I retired 20 odd years ago, so things may have changed!

When I was practicing it was known as a Full Building Survey and was considered to the best option available for as thorough a survey as was possible without actually opening up, and potentially damaging the structure. However an experienced surveyor should be capable of identifying areas or conditions which might hide certain kinds of defects, and be able to draw the client's attention to these which include factors like the age of the property, type of construction and history of site/area like geology,ground conditions, etc which could give rise to problems.  This is one reason why purchasers should always chose an experienced surveyor with good local knowledge. They should never use a surveyor who doesn't know the local area, and I would go as far as to say that any surveyor accepting a job in an area or locality in which he/she has no good local knowledge should decline the job. To procced might be considered negligent in the event of problems arising from a lack of local knowledge.

"They were here for just 40 minutes (3 bed semi). Can you really do a detailed survey with only spending 40 minutes on site?" You don't give the age of the property, but very unlikely

"I got the impression they were just taking photos. Presumably to study later but surely the best time to study is in person on site?" Agreed

"Camera on a pole for checking gutter, that was good. Wish I'd cleaned them beforehand. Doh!" Good idea that sort of technology wasn't available when I was practicing!

"Damp meter. Hmmm, pretty sure that's not going to give any useful readings." Depends! Damp is damp particularly if unexpected.

"Didn't spend any time in the loft. Easily accessible, all boarded out, but only put their head through the opening to take a picture." Quite unacceptable, any surveyor worth their salt should be expected to go into the loft, and to inspect it thoroughly, which includes an in depth inspection of vital timbers such as rafters, purlins, trusses, struts  and rafters to confirm that they conform in size, spacings and support for the spans involved, as well as for any signs of sagging, spread etc. The roof structure provides a huge opportunity for surveyor to inspect a vital part of a property in it's raw, and generally original state!  If these are covered up by linings etc, the surveyor should draw attention to this, recommend some opening up to expose the structure and offer to return for a re-inspection once this has been done. Given that the fee for a Building Survey is higher than other surveys, I would normally have offered to do such a re-inspection for a nominal additional fee  This applies to any additional re-inspections required by opening up concealed areas. The costs of actually opening up concealed areas would have to be borne by the client or vendor by agreement.

I've always been a proponent of surveys. But apparently only 9% of buyers get one:

https://www.leahough.co.uk/latest-news/fewer-than-10-of-buyers-opt-for-home... 2.

I'm pretty confident I can spot most major issues on a viewing, but still opt to get one as they have more freedom to explore and more time to do so. A second opinion is always useful. But based on what I saw maybe it's not always worth it unless you are going to pay top dollar for a highly skilled and recommended surveyor.

"Interested to know if I'm being overly critical of this surveyor." No I don't think so, based on what you have written!

Damp meter. Hmmm, pretty sure that's not going to give any useful readings." Depends! Damp is damp particularly if unexpected.

Don't damp meters only give accurate readings in timber?  I was under the impression the salts in masonry and plaster give spurious readings because damp meters measure conductivity.

I was hoping to get input from a surveyor. Great read.

What I suspect (I guess hope) is that there's just a lot of variation in the quality of surveyors today. The challenge then for customers is how the heck do you know who the good and bad ones are. It's hard to know from an example survey report and customers reviewing don't generally know how thorough a job they did.

I suspect the surveyor I met is a part of a larger company. Perhaps independents are a better bet on average?

Part of the problem is there doesn't appear to be much of an incentive for them to do a great job if you've covered yourself enough with words. So all you can hope for is an independent really cares about the topic and their business. 

In fairness to the surveyor, it's a 1950's council brick house so probably as basic as it gets. 

This is an interesting topic. If the buyer actually buys the property I would have no problem sorting this. If they don't, for some other flaky reason I would very much begrudge this. I wonder if a deposit type arrangement could work here. Buyer puts £1000 in as a deposit which contributes to the purchase of the house, and they lose it if they pull out for reasons not related to what is uncovered by the additional invasive survey. Probably too complicated but I like the idea in principle.

You are right, All the meter does is to indicate the presence of moisture. There can be numerous possible causes eg hydroscopic salts in the plaster absorbing moisture from the air, failed or missing dpc, foil backed wall paper causing conductivity,  bridged dpc, porous masonry, acids from soot deposits in chimney flues seeping into adjoining masonry,  defective guttering and downpipes etc etc, It's up to the surveyor to investigate if it's possible there and then,  or recommend further investigations if it's not immediately obvious,

As someone who has purchased numerous properties, I've found surveys to be a waste of time and money. If the mortgage provider requires a basic one for valuation, then so be it, but otherwise useless. If you read them, it's essentially an exercise in deflecting liability for anything that may in fact be wrong with the property. 

The most useful part of a survey is that you have an official piece of paper from an expert that says 'this needs doing' so you can price the work and knock it off your offer. If you just say "that window needs replacing so I'm taking £5k off" they're going to go with the next buyer. 

I found that knowledge didn't particularly help when buying properties; particularly the sort that first-time-buyers are attracted to. I'd spot all these problems and price my offer based off the market value, minus the cost of what needed doing. Some 20yo couple would come in with mummy and daddy's deposit without a clue and stick a stupid offer in without taking any of it into account. If they bothered getting a survey, they would then no-doubt knock that extra money off at that point anyway. 

Victorian and Edwardian houses, which make up most of our housing stock, are very straight-forward and usually have the same issues. I think if you're buying one of them, and you have a bit of knowledge, there isn't much point in the more expensive surveys. I'd be more inclined to get one if the house was 500 years old though. 

Saying that, it's often a requirement for you to get some level of survey for your mortgage lender. When I bought my first flat (in a Victorian townhouse), I just went with the basic survey that came as an option with the mortgage (I'd read that there wasn't much point in getting more specialist surveys on flats, as they can't access most of the building anyway). It was somewhere between £300 and £400 I think. I was disgusted when I got the report through. It consisted of 2 lines:

Internal Walls: Poor, Average, Good

External Walls: Poor, Average, Good

Both with the 'Average' box ticked

I think given the choice, I'd pay a couple hundred quid more and have someone actually look at things. Even if it was only for half an hour.

I also find it funny that the price of a survey is usually dictated by the price of a property, like that will dictate the level or work required during the survey. Last time I bought, I had 2 surveys done on 2 separate properties by the same surveyor, in the same town. The first house was in great nick; no real work needed at all, just maybe increase the sub-floor ventilation a bit. The second property was in a shite state, having been a rental for decades. It was cheaper because of this, so they survey was less. The work for the surveyor on the second property must have been loads more. How does that add up?

When friends of mine purchased their first house, they had a full survey carried out. It referred to the presence of cavity wall insulation in what turned out to be a single-brick wall! It also missed the fact it had an attic bedroom! They weren't impressed.

Even when I was practicing there was a huge range of competence amongst surveyors, I spent many years acting as an Expert Witness in surveyor negligence, not only in survey work but also valuations. There is an argument to suggest  that the two are linked. You can't really value a property without doing a full survey, unless you make the assumption that it is free from structural defect! If you make this assumption you must say so in your valuation, but then, strictly speaking , you must not mention any defects which are obvious without qualifying that! Otherwise what about other generally obvious defects which you don't mention!? It's a nightmare scenario for all concerned - hence most surveys/valuations are peppered with exclusion clauses!

The RICS may have changed it's training over the last couple of decades,  but I often thought that although the principles of sound Building Construction were taught, there seemed to be a lack of practical training in the art of actually conducting a Full Survey. It can take a lifetime of learning on the job, and I sometimes thought that an apprenticeship scheme for young newly qualified  was required  whereby they would accompany an experienced surveyor(s) for a year or two. I can see that financially it is probably a non starter. But there is nothing like doing something to learn how to do it! 

I have never liked the movement away from every survey and report being bespoke, towards reports being compiled on standardised forms, I can understand the rationale in that it should lower the risk of a surveyor missing something, but conversely it provides a temptation to make the facts "fit the form"when it isn't really appropriate, and it should be up to the surveyor to construct his/her report to say exactly what the mean so that their client understands

I think the creation of large national firms of surveyors, generally linked to or under the umbrellas of a large multi branch bank or building society was a terrible move by the banks and building societies motivated by making money rather than providing an honest attempt to serve their customers. It has seriously impacted on the principal of surveyors having good local knowledge. As you point out it's pretty well impossible for buyers to know where to start looking for such surveyors.

I would recommend getting names and addresses from the RICS, local well established solicitors, and estate agents. Although be careful here, because some estate agents will try and push you in the direction of a surveyor who is a soft touch and not very thorough because they don't want a sale to fall through on survey! Once you have a short list, go and have a consultation with the surveyor, try and assess how long they have been practicing in the area? How long will they spend on site? If there are topographical considerations in the area (mines,sea cliff erosion, areas prone to subsidence (clay? Old stream courses etc etc,)`   What will they do if they encounter covered areas? Do they lift loose carpets? move items like a small settee away from the wall so that they can check behind, or ask the vendor to help move something that isn't too heavy? Will they go into the roof space? Lift any covers to access roof valleys from the roof space? If there is a trap to access under floor areas will they go down and crawl though the sub floor areas? 

Obviously you have to use your common sense here, you can't expect a surveyor to take health and safety risks, but being a good surveyor requires a good degree of fitness, a willingness to get dirty and covered by cobwebs, and a willingness to climb a ladder and get into a roof space. , and a willingness to go up scaffolding etc in the event of a more detailed return visit being required.

I like the principle in your last paragraph! But as you say, probably too complex to devise