Structural Engineer report

Albala

csgohan4 wrote: »

As a vendor if your are unwilling to share the report to prove it needs work, I would tell you either pay the price or I remarket.


Put yourself in their shoes, anyone could make stuff up on a report, you need proof and even then the vendor are under no obligation to drop the price

I clearly said every single time that I would share the costings of further reports (on anything I felt was not obvious when I visited and therefore was not reasonable to assume was included in my offer). And it is also clear that some surveys are not permitted to be shared with anyone bar legal advisors to the client. So what is the buyer to do? break the terms of their contract? And surveys don;t identify costs, which is what offer negotiations are about. What is so difficult for some people to understand about that?

If you took that attitude, I'd walk away as a buyer. The vendor is under no obligation to drop the price, the seller is under no obligation to pay more than they choose either. A vendor willing to have a hissy fit about wanting to see a survey but ignore specialist costed reports to the extent that they will tell a buyer to get stuffed is not one I'd want to deal with.
All a buyer has to do is say, 'had the survey, now I'm offering x, take it or leave it'. But most buyers, including me, do provide a lot of information, which they have paid for, from reports and in some cases surveys. They are under no obligation to to that. In the end, the house is worth what you can get for it. If you want to dismiss every buyer who doesn't provide you with everything they have paid for, for free, even if it is against the terms of their contract with others, then fine, but I suspect you will end up getting less for your house unless you find a real sucker FTB. As I keep saying, some trust is necessary in house sales. You seem to give none, but expect all.

Albala

babyblade41 wrote: »

For me I'd express my annoyance in writing and expect some remuneration , but this is only if this is what has exactly happened .

Don't expect the entire cost back but a token amount would be suffice and then move on

I wouldn't ask for a monetary return, but I would expect an investigation, and if it turned out to be someone's fault, an apology.

Section106

Albala wrote: »

My understanding of it is that you can tell someone that the report has revealed a problem, and what it is in general, but you can't quote it, or hand a copy over, to anyone but your legal advisors.

Yet nobody has so far been able to offer an example of such draconian terms being imposed by a professional surveyor or structural engineer, and it is unlikely they would, since terms that were so restrictive would be unfair to the client as well as being unprofessional.

Albala wrote: »

Quotations by builders etc are what a buyer might reasonably share with a seller, not surveys. The cost of fixing a problem, or its extent, which is what is needed for negotiations, is identified by those, not by the survey.

It would not be unreasonable for a seller to ask the buyer for evidence from the survey/engineer's report confirming the extent of work needed.

Albala wrote: »

Bullying requests by EA and sellers for a copy of the survey are pretty pointless, even if they can be agreed to without breaking the T&Cs of the surveyor.

There is no place for bullying in any transaction. Sadly it is not unknown for buyers to present a seller with an extensive list of remedial work resulting from a survey and demand a reduction in the agreed sale price. It works both ways.

Albala wrote: »

I gather that if a sale falls through, sometimes a surveyor will agree to a second buyer having a copy if the buyer who bought it agrees and is paid a sum, or will do the second one for less and refund a little to the original buyer. If it has been handed over willy-nilly to the seller, they could show it to any later buyer else for free, which is well out of order all round, both for the surveyor and the original buyer who paid for it.

The surveyor or engineer who set the terms of the contract would not be out of pocket if a third party had sight of a report they produced. And any other buyer who was given a report by the vendor would be foolish to rely on it as they would have no way of knowing whether or not the vendor had altered the report, nor would they have any legal protection against errors made by the surveyor or engineer. The exception would be in cases where it is normal practice for the vendor to obtain and supply such reports.

Albala wrote: »

^^^ ""Idiot" is rather a strong term. It might be better to have a more complete understanding of what has happened in this case before using such words about a professional."

What term would you rather I used than the one I used for anyone who sent a report to someone who wasn't supposed to have it? I was deliberately avoiding terms that could be regarded as having a specific professional meaning. And I said " If they were sent them in error,", I also gave alternative scenarios.

"Person" would be quite adequate, and non-defamatory.

Albala

The OP can do as they like. If anyone wishes to hand over a survey, I suggest they check the T&Cs they bought it on rather than rely on people who refuse to accept that they are not so all-knowing that they know the T&Cs of all surveyors in the country. An example has been provided in an earlier post.


As for "The surveyor or engineer who set the terms of the contract would not be out of pocket if a third party had sight of a report they produced." Indeed they would if the seller handed it over to another buyer who might otherwise have commissioned a report.
As for mistrust in general, if a seller so mistrusts a buyer, what would stop them thinking that the buyer had 'tampered with' the report, as you suggest a seller might ("as they would have no way of knowing whether or not the vendor had altered the report")?
Some trust is necessary in business of any sort. And I come back to the same thing- how is a survey with no costings more useful when discussing money than a quotation by a specialist for the work itself? Don't bother answering for my sake, just answer for anyone who may read this thread later.

davidmcn

Albala wrote: »

Indeed they would if the seller handed it over to another buyer who might otherwise have commissioned a report.

But the other buyer wouldn't be able to rely on the report, and neither would their lender. In practice it's hardly uncommon for surveyors' or other consultants' reports to be more widely circulated for information purposes only, but if anybody wants to rely on it they'd be asking the surveyor to re-address the report or issue a separate letter of reliance, no doubt for an additional fee.

I can't see what remedy the surveyor would have for breach of such a condition.

Albala

davidmcn wrote: »

But the other buyer wouldn't be able to rely on the report, and neither would their lender. In practice it's hardly uncommon for surveyors' or other consultants' reports to be more widely circulated for information purposes only, but if anybody wants to rely on it they'd be asking the surveyor to re-address the report or issue a separate letter of reliance, no doubt for an additional fee.

I can't see what remedy the surveyor would have for breach of such a condition.

Agreed in that I can't see what a surveyor might do about it, but plenty of things don't have remedies, it doesn't make them right, though.
Restrictions in my line of work (copyright) are often ignored because people say 'I've never heard of anyone being done for it'. Those of us more in the know are aware that people are, and the penalties can be very severe. I've known at least one business that went under because of the costs it had to pay for breaching a photographer's copyright. But they are usually settled out of court, so don't become known. I hear now that some copyright holders make more money from this than from actually leasing their copyrights, but it's never mentioned in public. All I ask is that people should be careful, and should check before doing things. As it seems some people find it unclear, if someone was burning to hand over their survey, I would suggest they rang their surveyor first. They they know they are in the clear if the surveyor says 'no problem'.

System

Its is actually quite common for an agent to ask for a copy of the report if it brings up an issue that warrants a renegotiation in price otherwise you can just invent an issue to try and beat the price down.


What you cant do is pass it on to an unrelated party, new buyer if you pull out, for them to use as a negotiating tool


A little common sense needed here.

csgohan4

Albala wrote: »

I clearly said every single time that I would share the costings of further reports (on anything I felt was not obvious when I visited and therefore was not reasonable to assume was included in my offer). And it is also clear that some surveys are not permitted to be shared with anyone bar legal advisors to the client. So what is the buyer to do? break the terms of their contract? And surveys don;t identify costs, which is what offer negotiations are about. What is so difficult for some people to understand about that?

If you took that attitude, I'd walk away as a buyer. The vendor is under no obligation to drop the price, the seller is under no obligation to pay more than they choose either. A vendor willing to have a hissy fit about wanting to see a survey but ignore specialist costed reports to the extent that they will tell a buyer to get stuffed is not one I'd want to deal with.
All a buyer has to do is say, 'had the survey, now I'm offering x, take it or leave it'. But most buyers, including me, do provide a lot of information, which they have paid for, from reports and in some cases surveys. They are under no obligation to to that. In the end, the house is worth what you can get for it. If you want to dismiss every buyer who doesn't provide you with everything they have paid for, for free, even if it is against the terms of their contract with others, then fine, but I suspect you will end up getting less for your house unless you find a real sucker FTB. As I keep saying, some trust is necessary in house sales. You seem to give none, but expect all.

In the end buying an selling a house is a business nothing personal

There is no trust, only official reports. hence why you have solicitors and RICS surveys done. Would you trust a vendor who says you don't need a survey nothing wrong, buy my house??

I would dismiss every buyer who doesn't back up their claims because of an alleged clause in their report

How do you suggest one should do to break the deadlock? Go on trust?? Trust is earnt as well, if you don't provide proof how can I trust you? I don't know you?

If a lender's valuation came back as lower than offer price and the buyer refused to provide it? What do you think the vendor should do? Trust them??

Your taking the extreme to copyright issues, assuming there is even one in the first place

AdrianC

csgohan4 wrote: »

Your taking the extreme to copyright issues, assuming there is even one in the first place

The copyright analogy is a terrible one. It's like saying you've bought a work of art, but can't show it to your friends.

Section106

Albala wrote: »

The OP can do as they like.

It has got a bit lost in the discussion, but the OP's issue is not about whether or not they can pass the report on to anybody else, but instead whether or not they have any comeback against a third party who has apparently already done so.

The important point in that respect is the engineer (in this case) or a surveyor (in general) is not restricted in passing a copy of their work on to a third party unless they have agreed to prepare the report on a confidential basis.

The other issues being discussed relate to what someone else might be allowed to do with a report prepared for them. Its important that no myths or legends are created here about what people can do with their survey/engineering reports.

Albala wrote: »

If anyone wishes to hand over a survey, I suggest they check the T&Cs they bought it on rather than rely on people who refuse to accept that they are not so all-knowing that they know the T&Cs of all surveyors in the country. An example has been provided in an earlier post.

Nobody is claiming to be "all-knowing". Every surveyor and engineer will have slightly different T&C's. But it is exceptionally unlikely that any T&C's would restrict a prospective buyer to sharing a copy of a professional report with their legal advisors only. Such terms would be unprofessional, and probably be judged to be legally unfair.

The example quoted by Jumblebumble doesn't have the effect you say it does.

As for "The surveyor or engineer who set the terms of the contract would not be out of pocket if a third party had sight of a report they produced." Indeed they would if the seller handed it over to another buyer who might otherwise have commissioned a report.

Only if the buyer was going to commission a report from that surveyor or engineer in any event. Davidmcn has already addressed the issue that other parties receiving the report would be unable to rely on it without commissioning further work from the professional concerned.

If anything, it is in the professional's interests that another buyer gets to see their report, since that buyer would then be able to see the quality of the work and know that they could probably ask the professional to advise them at a reduced cost compared to starting fresh with a name picked out of the yellow pages.

People reading this thread only need to be aware that they cannot rely on a report prepared for someone else if the terms of that commission contain such an exclusion. It would be a myth to think that no buyer is ever allowed to see a report prepared for someone else.

As for mistrust in general, if a seller so mistrusts a buyer, what would stop them thinking that the buyer had 'tampered with' the report, as you suggest a seller might ("as they would have no way of knowing whether or not the vendor had altered the report")?

That argument fails because the requirements are asymmetric. A buyer asks for professional advice because they lack the skills and knowledge to identify defects themselves. An unscrupulous seller could amend a report to remove references to defects and the buyer would be none the wiser.

An unscrupulous buyer could tamper with a report to add defects which don't really exist (in the same way they could produce a builder's quote for unnecessary work) but it would be very easy for the seller to pick up the absence of such defects in their property. E.g. If your report told me I had Japanese Knotweed in my garden then I would be going outside to look for it, and asking you precisely where it was if I couldn't find it.

Some trust is necessary in business of any sort. And I come back to the same thing- how is a survey with no costings more useful when discussing money than a quotation by a specialist for the work itself? Don't bother answering for my sake, just answer for anyone who may read this thread later.

For the benefit of anyone who reads this thread later, a professional report (with no costings) draws your attention to issues you might not be aware of and provides evidence as to the existence and scale of the problem. The professional will be bound by professional responsibility and ethical standards, and upholding these is what they depend on in order to continue practicsing their profession. The report might not tell you how much the problem will cost to put right, but you can rely on the report to identify genuine issues and - within the limitations defined in the report - that no other problems should exist.

A quotation by a builder for work (even if they are a "specialist") might be on the basis of simply sucking air in between their teeth and saying "That's going to cost you mate". If they are lying, or stretching the scale of the work required, then there will be virtually no professional impact on them whatsoever. They will simply go to the next job and do some more air sucking.

I know which of those I would place greater reliance on, in the first instance.