Surveyor negligence?

Essar

Hiya,

We recently purchased a flat - as part of the purchase we ordered a RICS level 2 (homebuyer) survey. Unfortunately, we've discovered some issues with the plumbing which could cost a bit to fix since it would require unfitting the kitchen. Now, having read up a bit on the actual survey process, it appears to me that a surprising amount of it says 'oh they won't actually test this at all', so I'm not especially optimistic of being able to actually prove negligence.

In particular, this document asserts, in the section on services, that in the level 2 survey,

The surveyor will lift accessible inspection chamber covers (where it is safe to do so) and visually inspect the chamber(s).

and only in the level 3 survey will they 

observe the normal operation of the services in everyday use.

which includes such invasive procedures as running the tap, and checking that tubs drain. However, this statement is also present in the above-linked document:

In all cases, the surveyor will advise the client that further tests and inspections will be required if the owner/occupier does not provide evidence of appropriate installation and/or maintenance, or the client requires assurance as to their condition, capability and safety. 

Given that the inspection of the internal plumbing largely seems to consist of blinking at it, under what conditions would it actually occur that they suggest a plumber come out?

For example, in our report the surveyor did not look at the internal stopcock but simply wrote that the (previous) homeowner stated it was behind a kick panel. The stopcock is completely jammed, which he would have discovered if he had looked behind the easily movable kick panel (in which case, he might also have spotted some suspicious pipework and suggested that we get a plumber to do a more proper check). Does moving a kick panel to check a stopcock not fall under 'visually inspecting the chamber(s)'?

Obviously getting a stopcock fixed isn't the real issue here, but it might have hinted at poorly maintained plumbing. What are my chances of showing negligence? Zero-to-none or none-to-a-tiny-bit?

caprikid1

"The stopcock is completely jammed"

How would he have identified that from a visual inspection ? I would be surprised if any surveyor hunts down and test's stopcocks. If you were doing that everyday there is an absolute chance of causing a minor or major leak / breaking them. Stopcocks can be nightmare for breaking / furring up.

caprikid1

Buyers Surveyor broke the stopcock in our house causing serious leak "Surveyor negligence ?"

macman

Firstly, a surveyor is no more qualified to inspect plumbing than any layperson is. Or electrics, for that matter.
Secondly, a surveyor cannot move anything or dismantle anything in the house without permission from the vendors. If they'd stood a box in front of the panel, he couldn't have moved it. And, even if he had opened it, he would not know if it was seized unless he attempted to close it. 
A homebuyer's report is minimally invasive: you are expecting far too much. Even a full survey would not have picked this up.
Most people do not 'maintain' their plumbing at all: they only act when there is a fault or leak. Which is when they find that the stopcock is seized...

Section62

Essar said:

Does moving a kick panel to check a stopcock not fall under 'visually inspecting the chamber(s)'?

In context 'chambers' refers to drainage chambers - manholes or inspection chambers etc, i.e. not removing a panel to observe internal plumbing.

Essar said:

Obviously getting a stopcock fixed isn't the real issue here, but it might have hinted at poorly maintained plumbing. What are my chances of showing negligence? Zero-to-none or none-to-a-tiny-bit?

It is fairly unlikely they haven't covered their backside, so my answer is probably "a fair bit less than either of those options".

user1977

Essar said:

Obviously getting a stopcock fixed isn't the real issue here, but it might have hinted at poorly maintained plumbing. What are my chances of showing negligence? Zero-to-none or none-to-a-tiny-bit?

It's not within their remit to check whether the stopcock works, so unless they had actually said that they had checked it and it was fine, you don't have a claim.

And I don't see what a seized-up stopcock would prove about any other aspect of the plumbing system (other than perhaps the converse: "everything is so reliable we've never had to turn the water off to carry out repairs").

"Inspection chambers" = "manholes", nothing to do with stopcocks inside the flat.

mark_cycling00

I imagine fairly near zero. The survey report will be full of disclaimers. 
If they said "I tested the stop-!!!!!! and it is in good order" but it was clearly totally broken then maybe there is a case for something.

I guess one viewpoint is that you chose level-2 rather than level-3 because you were happy with the risk of later discovering problems that might have been found by a level-3. Or having a plumbing check prior to purchase.

swabaxter

Thanks for the question. It's unfortunately true that many older properties are not in great condition and there may have been many modifications made over the years. As well as a surveyor it's just as essential to find competent trades people who can assess things like plumbing and electrical. I'd be willing to bet if you had an EICR carried out on your property some defects would emerge. It's really just a case of budgeting for improvements and/or remedial work. Best Wishes. 

mark_cycling00

haha - "stopcock" gets censored. 
I bet that puts my account in the naughty books.

user1977

mark_cycling00 said:

haha - "stopcock" gets censored. 

No, "stopcock" is fine. "!!!!!!" isn't. Though "cocks" is ok. No idea!

Essar

Alright, thanks for the feedback everybody, I guess it's pretty much what I expected!

I just find it funny how light-touch the survey process seems to be, especially for what you pay (maybe it would seem fairer if I were buying a big house!). Also having recently moved back to the UK from a country with completely different housing stock and regulations, it just feels a bit absurd how some things work (or mainly, don't work) here, but I guess you could argue that's an issue of familiarity.