Surveyor negligence

Rydam

I recently purchased a house based on a Home Report by Shepherd Chartered Surveyors. After moving in several major defects were found and on investigation of these it became apparent that the construction of the property was inaccurately described in the original report. The actual construction is substantially less than mentioned and the repair bills to make the property as described will be many tens of thousands of pounds.


We had an independent surveyor inspect the property and he claimed that any reasonably competent surveyor should have identified the correct construction.


As we would not have purchased the property had we known the true construction and associated risks with this, can we claim negligence and subsequently the repair costs against Shepherds errors?

Davesnave

If matters are exactly as described, then you might have a case, but you are being coy about the exact nature of the construction and what this surveyor said it was.

I think people here would need to know more about the defects, the repairs needed and the necessity to make the construction as described before they could comment usefully.

And, as always on this forum, they'd ask, "What does your solicitor say?"

Did he/she advise you to ask some random strangers on the Internet?

AndyBSG

All depends on what type of survey you had and what the surveyor put in the report.

A home buyers survey is pretty much the most basic one you can get, aside from a valuation survey.

So, if you're buying a relatively modern new build then it should be OK but anything other than that then you should really go for a full building survey.

A home buyers report is little more than a cursory lookover. They won't generally move furniture to look at things or look under floorboards and they're usually only on site for a couple of hours.

So, if the problems you had were not problems you could see by eye from looking at the property then I doubt you'll have any grounds for complaint.

Additionally they generally word the reports specifically. So they won't say 'All walls are structurally sound' but will say 'all walls appear structurally sound', etc.

What sort of issues have you encountered?

Rydam

Hi Davesnave,


the report described the house of standard cavity wall construction { The upper level is of cavity


construction with the inner leaf being of timber frame and the outer leaf of concrete block roughcast externally }.


The actual construction is single leaf timber framed construction boarded and then clad with roughcasting on metal lath or similar.


There are instances of severe water penetration showing. As the whole upper floor is cantilevered off the ground floor, the overhang is showing signs of deflection both inside and outside due to the increased weight of the water soaked plywood cladding.

Rydam

Thanks Andy,


In Scotland a seller must provide an independent surveyors report for any prospective buyers in order to protect a buyer from being given misinformation on the property. I am aware of the 'get out clauses' such as you described but the survey does not use these phrases, it clearly states the construction of the upper floor is.......in several different parts of the report. The house is 35years old and of a bespoke design - 4 half levels with the 2 upper floors overhanging the ground floors. The alternative surveyor stipulated that the house would immediately make you ask......how have they constructed that?

Davesnave

Thanks for the further details.

Many of us here are not familiar with the Scottish home report system and its implications, but the expert opinion of another surveyor adds considerable weight to your case.

What I'm not sure about is why, if you've invested in this further survey, you are apparently not yet pursuing the matter via a solicitor. We do have several people on this board connected with the legal profession, but without access to all the facts, I think it will be hard for anyone to do more than advise in a general sense.

phill99

Rewrite your post and take out the name of the firm that you are alleging being negligent.


You are accusing them, but have no evidence of negligence. That is libel. If it turns out they have done nothing wrong, then they have the right to drag you through the courts.

Chanes

How would you quantify the cost to the company of it being named on this post? He is asking if he can claim negligence based on the details he has given. He isn't saying it was wilful?

Rydam

I have no qualms about that.


I have merely described the facts and queried whether I would be able to claim negligence due to the errors that they have made in the report - one in which an independent surveyor advises should have been readily identified by a reasonably competent surveyor.
Shepherds have already confirmed the actual construction of the house is not as described in the report.

G_M

1) I agree you should remove the surveyors name

2) I agree you should consult a) the new surveyor and b) your solicitor or c) a new solicitor if you did the conveyancing yourself

3) Have you looked up the 1st surveyor's complaints procedure? And followed it?

5) have you looked up the RICS complaints procedure, in case the surveyor's complaints procedure does not satisfy you?

4) Has the new surveyor given you a written report and if so does it clarly state that the initial survey was sub-standard?

davidmcn

Davesnave wrote: »

Many of us here are not familiar with the Scottish home report system and its implications

It doesn't particularly matter in this case, the principles of pursuing a negligence claim against a surveyor are much the same, the only quirk being that the purchaser is relying on a survey commissioned by the seller.

but the expert opinion of another surveyor adds considerable weight to your case

Yes, though it's not clear whether this other survey was instructed with a view to pursuing a negligence claim or just happened to be a second opinion. If it came to court then the OP would probably need a retrospective survey as their expert's opinion on what the original surveyor ought to have reported on at the time.

phill99 wrote: »

Rewrite your post and take out the name of the firm that you are alleging being negligent. You are accusing them, but have no evidence of negligence. That is libel. If it turns out they have done nothing wrong, then they have the right to drag you through the courts.

Quite far from libel compared to some of the other stuff on this forum! I think it's pretty clear that the OP is seeking advice on whether it is negligence, not saying that they actually have been negligent. Besides, I'm not sure what their loss would be - all the big firms are going to make mistakes from time to time, whether or not they actually have in this case.