RICS Building Survey - Factually Incorrect/Missed Problem

Marshaltown

OP initially just email the Firm involved and politely point out your concerns. This may avoid your "concerns" being viewed as a "complaint" which would immediately have to be referred on to Insurers who will be a lot less cooperative. 

Thrugelmir

thias said:

Section62 said:

Before diving into the complaints process it would be worth taking a step back and checking the facts.

thias said:

We've recently purchased a property originally built in the 1800s. It has three chimney stacks.
Since completing on the purchase we've discovered the chimney breast below one of the chimney stacks has been removed and the stack is not being supported. 

If the stack is not being supported then why hasn't it fallen down (yet)?

Is it possible the person noticing the 'missing' chimney breast is misunderstanding how the structure of the building works?

thias said:

We now need to either support or remove the problematic stack.

Who is saying this, and how have they arrived at that conclusion?  Is it possible they are wrong? (see previous point)

thias said:

The report clearly states "There are three chimney stacks" and "The chimney breasts remain". - do we have any comeback on the survey company?

It says "The chimney breasts remain" it doesn't say "The three chimney breasts remain". In the context of the report could "The chimney breasts remain" refer to a number less than three - for example "The chimney breasts in the [living room] remain"?

The loft space isn't accessible by a hatch so I cut a whole in the ceiling on Wednesday and sent him the images of the stack from the roof void and he confirmed the lack of support.

A surveyor doesn't have x-ray vision. 

stevenway

Steve the Surveyor here - it's the sort of thing that we should identify and report on but we will only inspect what we can see sp if an attic is sealed we won't know what's there.  But if a chimney breast is apparently missing that should usually be reported.  Remedy is not necessarily expensive and be aware that damages in surveyors negligence claims are usually managed against the diminution in value of the property as against the cost of remedy.  So, if the error made no material difference to the value of the house the claim value may be nil. Be prepared to take a commercial view. 

The firm must have a complaint handling procedure (CHP) so use that.  My firm has dealt with complaints in the past.  Don't expect the surveyor to simply roll over, we won't and there may be reasons the report was drafted as it was.   My advice to you though (as a recipient and decision-maker for complaints) is don't go in all guns blazing, shouting the odds but try and engage in a reasonable conversation, the outcome will be different.

Section62

thias said:
All good questions, I should have provided more context in my initial post.
We're extending the property, so have "professionals" onsite.
Our builder came to the house on Tuesday and initially flagged this as being a potential problem, he also suggested the stack had a slight lien on it, but it is slight and I certainly wouldn't have noticed it without him mentioning it.
The loft space isn't accessible by a hatch so I cut a whole in the ceiling on Wednesday and sent him the images of the stack from the roof void and he confirmed the lack of support.

Thanks. I was anticipating the situation might have changed in some way since the survey was done which is why the context is so important here.  You will need to go through the contract you had with the surveyor and take a view on whether the conclusions they came to were reasonable in the circumstances that applied at the time, not after additional information came to light.  Unless they were commissioned to do an intrusive survey they might argue that the defect was hidden and not something they should be expected to find - and in any event they are likely to have standard terms regarding the limits of what they were reporting on.

I am still surprised by the 'lack of support' issue.  If a chimney has been removed all the way up into a non-accessible roof space then you have to ask how that work was carried out, and why having gone that far, the remainder wasn't also removed.  Do you have pictures of what remains (within the roof space and from outside)? It might help others here to get a better understanding of your situation.

thias said:
Our architect was also at the house today who confirmed the same.
Next step will be a structural engineer, but that's where the additional costs start, that we didn't budget for.

Depending on the circumstances (e.g. listed building, conservation area, detrimental impact on the appearance of the building, structural issues) you might want to consider the possibility of removing the remainder of the chimney stack rather than attempting to support it, especially if it is already showing visible signs of movement.  There is a prospect of longer-term savings on maintenance (rebuilding, repointing, flashing replacement, less risk of roof leakage etc), and a competent builder should be able to deal with work of that nature with minimal structural engineering input.  If your architect hasn't already suggested it then I would have a discussion with them about all the options.

Section62

stevenway said:

My advice to you though (as a recipient and decision-maker for complaints) is don't go in all guns blazing, shouting the odds but try and engage in a reasonable conversation, the outcome will be different.

I'm not a Surveyor, but have handled (and made) a great many complaints and agree completely with your advice.

The first step is always to make sure you have your facts straight, and then a good idea of what you can expect to achieve as a reasonable outcome.  Start the complaint as a polite conversation, perhaps as part of the fact-finding, and only ramp things up if there is resistance or obstruction in the way the issue is being handled by the other side.

I've followed this forum for many years and have noticed in more recent times that some of the advice given is more of the 'guns blazing' type, often with a poor understanding of the facts.  Unfortunately in some cases that kind of advice could lead to very poor outcomes for the recipients.