This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
1) I put an offer in on a house marketed by Purple Bricks. A day later I get an offer of a sale from a surveyor who got my number from Purple Bricks. How can he possibly claim to be even vaguely independent when he is trying to get business from the seller's agent!?.
2) I instruct a different surveyor to give me a valuations 2a) He asks for my offer. Why? So he can quote it back at me? The point of a valuation is so I know if my offer is reasonable. So I refuse. 2b) He promises a report in 7 days. 15 days, 4 phone calls and 2 email later I am still waiting. Surveyor out/surveyor to sign report/ surveyor looking "for more evidence of value" (it's a typical 2 bed terrace...).
All I want is number based on a little more local knowledge than I have... and there's a whole "profession" =cartel dedicated to making this expensive and untrustworthy. It's telling that RICS complaints pages are mainly concerned with giving information to surveyors about how to deflect complaints!
2) I instruct a different surveyor to give me a valuations 2a) He asks for my offer. Why? So he can quote it back at me? The point of a valuation is so I know if my offer is reasonable. So I refuse. 2b) He promises a report in 7 days. 15 days, 4 phone calls and 2 email later I am still waiting. Surveyor out/surveyor to sign report/ surveyor looking "for more evidence of value" (it's a typical 2 bed terrace...).
All I want is number based on a little more local knowledge than I have... and there's a whole "profession" =cartel dedicated to making this expensive and untrustworthy. It's telling that RICS complaints pages are mainly concerned with giving information to surveyors about how to deflect complaints!
7
In reply to MG:
1) Not sure what you mean in your first point by "offer of a sale".
2) Sounds like crap service, but you can get crap service anywhere.
Often you'll be asked about the sale price so the valuer can comment upon it and whether it is in line with the market (many lenders specifically request this, although if he/she is acting for you it may well just be part of the format they use). The reported value might be the same (or close) or differ greatly, with an explanation why.
1) Not sure what you mean in your first point by "offer of a sale".
2) Sounds like crap service, but you can get crap service anywhere.
Often you'll be asked about the sale price so the valuer can comment upon it and whether it is in line with the market (many lenders specifically request this, although if he/she is acting for you it may well just be part of the format they use). The reported value might be the same (or close) or differ greatly, with an explanation why.
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
Meant "offer of survey", sorry.
Hmm. I did give him the asking price, rather than my offer, and I have just, at last, had the report. Surprise! The valuation is exactly the asking price!
> 1) Not sure what you mean in your first point by "offer of a sale".
Meant "offer of survey", sorry.
> 2) Sounds like crap service, but you can get crap service anywhere.
> Often you'll be asked about the sale price so the valuer can comment upon it and whether it is in line with the market (many lenders specifically request this, although if he/she is acting for you it may well just be part of the format they use). The reported value might be the same (or close) or differ greatly, with an explanation why.
Hmm. I did give him the asking price, rather than my offer, and I have just, at last, had the report. Surprise! The valuation is exactly the asking price!
In reply to MG:
1) Ah, yeah, not ideal. You should e provided with a list and you can then choose.
To be honest, I am not a fan of Purple Bricks - I think it's fine for the most vanilla properties but as soon as there is a problem, or the other side get antsy then it's useless.
2) I suspect you're an educated purchaser, so your offer is in line with the market, but it can seem like a cop out. It usually isn't.
I wish I could value at purchase price everytime, it would save me endless headaches and argument, but I'm paid to give a professional opinion and taking a stand is a good way to keep the PI safe. I deal with complex and specialised commercial trading assets , but the same principles apply.
1) Ah, yeah, not ideal. You should e provided with a list and you can then choose.
To be honest, I am not a fan of Purple Bricks - I think it's fine for the most vanilla properties but as soon as there is a problem, or the other side get antsy then it's useless.
2) I suspect you're an educated purchaser, so your offer is in line with the market, but it can seem like a cop out. It usually isn't.
I wish I could value at purchase price everytime, it would save me endless headaches and argument, but I'm paid to give a professional opinion and taking a stand is a good way to keep the PI safe. I deal with complex and specialised commercial trading assets , but the same principles apply.
Post edited at 16:09
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
To be fair the report isn't too bad now I have it, and it does provide some evidence for the valuation, but it really isn't very credible giving the precise number of the offers over pric as the value. Clearly impossible given the internet etc. but I strongly suspect it would have been 5% lower if the valuation had been provided "blind". Given the uncertainties, I would think a value range would be sensible
To be fair the report isn't too bad now I have it, and it does provide some evidence for the valuation, but it really isn't very credible giving the precise number of the offers over pric as the value. Clearly impossible given the internet etc. but I strongly suspect it would have been 5% lower if the valuation had been provided "blind". Given the uncertainties, I would think a value range would be sensible
In reply to MG:
The RICS will not allow a range of values anymore, so we have to adopted a single number for Market Value, or make explicit assumptions which have a bearing on value.
Personally, I ask not to be informed of the price agreed, but in my markets the price can be influenced by numerous factors (target IRR, funding vehicles, SPV's etc), whereas the Value may be very different.
The RICS will not allow a range of values anymore, so we have to adopted a single number for Market Value, or make explicit assumptions which have a bearing on value.
Personally, I ask not to be informed of the price agreed, but in my markets the price can be influenced by numerous factors (target IRR, funding vehicles, SPV's etc), whereas the Value may be very different.
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
A slight derailment but how would you come about a value in this situation.
When we sold our place (back to back terrace) in 2016 no houses of that type had been sold since 2006 when we got a new neighbour.
I had a guess at 85k and the estate agents put it up at 85k (their recommended start price) but I never got to find out the value from the buyer because I sold it cheap to a friend.
To me the value of anything is what people will pay for it but no one had paid anything in 10 years so how do you ascertain the value?
A slight derailment but how would you come about a value in this situation.
When we sold our place (back to back terrace) in 2016 no houses of that type had been sold since 2006 when we got a new neighbour.
I had a guess at 85k and the estate agents put it up at 85k (their recommended start price) but I never got to find out the value from the buyer because I sold it cheap to a friend.
To me the value of anything is what people will pay for it but no one had paid anything in 10 years so how do you ascertain the value?
In reply to MG:
I'm always very dubious of surveyors, from my personal experience there are a load of cowboys in the trade who protect themselves by adding caveats to every sentence.
In my sister's house they failed to notice a unsupported chimney breast in the attic and when questioned said they couldn't gain access to the attic (despite the big loft hatch) but there was a clause somewhere saying that they didn't need to make this clear.
More recently some friends bought a place and the surveyor missed so many things it's just crazy.
I was lucky enough to not need a valuation survey and just got friends and family to look over the place. I have found plenty of gremlins in the house but nothing that would be found by a standard survey.
I'm always very dubious of surveyors, from my personal experience there are a load of cowboys in the trade who protect themselves by adding caveats to every sentence.
In my sister's house they failed to notice a unsupported chimney breast in the attic and when questioned said they couldn't gain access to the attic (despite the big loft hatch) but there was a clause somewhere saying that they didn't need to make this clear.
More recently some friends bought a place and the surveyor missed so many things it's just crazy.
I was lucky enough to not need a valuation survey and just got friends and family to look over the place. I have found plenty of gremlins in the house but nothing that would be found by a standard survey.
2
In reply to MG:
Why go to surveyor to find out what it's worth? It's worth what someone will pay for it - I.e. - You!
Tell the surveyor that 'time is of the essence' and you require the report by close of play xx/xx/xxx etc or you'll be going elsewhere
Why go to surveyor to find out what it's worth? It's worth what someone will pay for it - I.e. - You!
Tell the surveyor that 'time is of the essence' and you require the report by close of play xx/xx/xxx etc or you'll be going elsewhere
1
1
In reply to blurty:
If you need to borrow anything for it you need a survey just so the bank know they'll have something to sell if you don't pay back the loan
> Why go to surveyor to find out what it's worth? It's worth what someone will pay for it - I.e. - You!..
If you need to borrow anything for it you need a survey just so the bank know they'll have something to sell if you don't pay back the loan
4
In reply to blurty:
As above I was hoping for an assessment of value using more local knowledge than I have as I don't won't to overpay and risk losing money on a future sale. I just about got this, but you are right, probably not really beneficial in hindsight.
> Why go to surveyor to find out what it's worth? It's worth what someone will pay for it - I.e. - You!
As above I was hoping for an assessment of value using more local knowledge than I have as I don't won't to overpay and risk losing money on a future sale. I just about got this, but you are right, probably not really beneficial in hindsight.
In reply to gethin_allen:
I *am* a surveyor (a Geodetic surveyor on the Land and Hydrographic side) and as far as building surveyors go, I agree entirely. In fact, it became so embarrassing to say you were a "surveyor" a few years ago that those of us who are "real" surveyors started calling ourselves "Geomaticians" or "Geomatic/ Geodetic Surveyors" to try and avoid damnation by association with the large number of incompetent building surveyors in the business.
When we bought our house our own surveyor missed an unsupported chimney breast in the kitchen (false ceiling with easily lifted panels). He's have seen the dodgy electrics and unsupported hanging pipework up there, too, if he'd lifted a panel a few inches. He missed the bowed pillars on the rear bay where the previous owners had reduced their width to accommodate a sliding glass door, the fact that the staircase to the second floor was unsupported as the main stress member had been removed. Not to mention every other stair baluster having been removed for "aesthetic" reasons....but leaving gaps big enough for a child to fall through and outsider building regs.
I picked up on all those items and others, despite being a land/ hydrographic surveyor with no training at all in the building/ valuation side. I was incensed that this bloke was in the same profession institution as me (RICS) and had no idea how he'd managed to pass his (as it then was ) TPC (Test of Professional Competence).
> I'm always very dubious of surveyors, from my personal experience there are a load of cowboys in the trade who protect themselves by adding caveats to every sentence.
> In my sister's house they failed to notice a unsupported chimney breast in the attic and when questioned said they couldn't gain access to the attic (despite the big loft hatch) but there was a clause somewhere saying that they didn't need to make this clear.
I *am* a surveyor (a Geodetic surveyor on the Land and Hydrographic side) and as far as building surveyors go, I agree entirely. In fact, it became so embarrassing to say you were a "surveyor" a few years ago that those of us who are "real" surveyors started calling ourselves "Geomaticians" or "Geomatic/ Geodetic Surveyors" to try and avoid damnation by association with the large number of incompetent building surveyors in the business.
When we bought our house our own surveyor missed an unsupported chimney breast in the kitchen (false ceiling with easily lifted panels). He's have seen the dodgy electrics and unsupported hanging pipework up there, too, if he'd lifted a panel a few inches. He missed the bowed pillars on the rear bay where the previous owners had reduced their width to accommodate a sliding glass door, the fact that the staircase to the second floor was unsupported as the main stress member had been removed. Not to mention every other stair baluster having been removed for "aesthetic" reasons....but leaving gaps big enough for a child to fall through and outsider building regs.
I picked up on all those items and others, despite being a land/ hydrographic surveyor with no training at all in the building/ valuation side. I was incensed that this bloke was in the same profession institution as me (RICS) and had no idea how he'd managed to pass his (as it then was ) TPC (Test of Professional Competence).
2
In reply to Rob Naylor:
I too am (was) a Chartered Surveyor. When I qualified in what was then known as General Practice 50 years ago I felt proud to be a member of a respected profession. Part of my training included being very familiar with how buildings were put together and how they functioned. We were taught not to skimp and to be very very thorough in our investigations. A Building Survey, or as it was known as in those days, a Structural Survey, was a serious undertaking and there were no short cuts to your investigations. Every survey was bespoke and unique to that property and that client. To do properly most surveys took most of the day, sometimes several days. We were not afraid to express an opinion free from a host of caveats and exclusion clauses.
Of course it is unrealistic to expect a surveyor to have x-ray eyes but an experienced surveyor should be looking for clues and indications of problems which may lie hidden behind furniture, floor coverings etc. Experience had a lot to do with developing a sixth sense that there might very well be unseen problems lurking in "hidden" areas.
When inspecting a roof space I always used to crawl into the whole area going right into the eaves and even squeezing under valley lay boards to access adjoining roof spaces. This was a filthy and hot job requiring a lot of agility. I always used to lift traps giving access to roof valleys, sometimes really difficult and srenuous where covered by heavy lead. Likewise wherever there were traps and loose floor boards I would make a point of crawling wherever possible through sub ground floor areas. It was a bit like caving, and a dirty cramped job, but well worth for the number of times I discovered problems developing.
Over the years the standards have slipped, the quality of "on the job" training has worsened, there has been a shift towards tick box surveys, a reduction in the amount of time surveyors can spend on a job dictated by pressure of work imposed by corporate companies, the introduction of more and more exclusion clauses, the reports are no longer bespoke, surveyors are encouraged to use standard phrases and clauses rather than their own words, and the ability to be able write a clear report in good English seems to be a skill of the past.
One of the worst moves was the introduction of Homebuyer Reports which were seen as a cheap alternative to a full Building Survey. I never liked them because they were designed to be concise and inexpensive when compared with a Building Survey, which because it was much more comprehensive was also much more expensive.
I am afraid this move was a result of increasing public pressure for a cheaper alternative to a Building Survey. I believe the RICS took a significant backward step by giving in to this pressure, and this is the root of the problem. The public don't want to pay for the proper job, but want a cheaper alternative with the surveyor still bearing the same responsibility and liability.
This problem has been compounded by surveyors themselves starting to believe that the Homebuyer Survey is somehow an easier cheaper alternative. It's 10 years now since I retired but I was ashamed at the way so many Surveyors used to say that they didn't feel competent enough to undertake a Full Building Survey and were turning to just doing Homebuyer Reports and padding their virtually useless reports out with exclusion clauses.
I maintain that if you aren't competent enough to undertake a Full Building Survey, then you are incompetent and should not be practicing.
That is why when I retired from practicing I resigned completely from the RICS
> I was incensed that this bloke was in the same profession institution as me (RICS) and had no idea how he'd managed to pass his (as it then was ) TPC (Test of Professional Competence).
I too am (was) a Chartered Surveyor. When I qualified in what was then known as General Practice 50 years ago I felt proud to be a member of a respected profession. Part of my training included being very familiar with how buildings were put together and how they functioned. We were taught not to skimp and to be very very thorough in our investigations. A Building Survey, or as it was known as in those days, a Structural Survey, was a serious undertaking and there were no short cuts to your investigations. Every survey was bespoke and unique to that property and that client. To do properly most surveys took most of the day, sometimes several days. We were not afraid to express an opinion free from a host of caveats and exclusion clauses.
Of course it is unrealistic to expect a surveyor to have x-ray eyes but an experienced surveyor should be looking for clues and indications of problems which may lie hidden behind furniture, floor coverings etc. Experience had a lot to do with developing a sixth sense that there might very well be unseen problems lurking in "hidden" areas.
When inspecting a roof space I always used to crawl into the whole area going right into the eaves and even squeezing under valley lay boards to access adjoining roof spaces. This was a filthy and hot job requiring a lot of agility. I always used to lift traps giving access to roof valleys, sometimes really difficult and srenuous where covered by heavy lead. Likewise wherever there were traps and loose floor boards I would make a point of crawling wherever possible through sub ground floor areas. It was a bit like caving, and a dirty cramped job, but well worth for the number of times I discovered problems developing.
Over the years the standards have slipped, the quality of "on the job" training has worsened, there has been a shift towards tick box surveys, a reduction in the amount of time surveyors can spend on a job dictated by pressure of work imposed by corporate companies, the introduction of more and more exclusion clauses, the reports are no longer bespoke, surveyors are encouraged to use standard phrases and clauses rather than their own words, and the ability to be able write a clear report in good English seems to be a skill of the past.
One of the worst moves was the introduction of Homebuyer Reports which were seen as a cheap alternative to a full Building Survey. I never liked them because they were designed to be concise and inexpensive when compared with a Building Survey, which because it was much more comprehensive was also much more expensive.
I am afraid this move was a result of increasing public pressure for a cheaper alternative to a Building Survey. I believe the RICS took a significant backward step by giving in to this pressure, and this is the root of the problem. The public don't want to pay for the proper job, but want a cheaper alternative with the surveyor still bearing the same responsibility and liability.
This problem has been compounded by surveyors themselves starting to believe that the Homebuyer Survey is somehow an easier cheaper alternative. It's 10 years now since I retired but I was ashamed at the way so many Surveyors used to say that they didn't feel competent enough to undertake a Full Building Survey and were turning to just doing Homebuyer Reports and padding their virtually useless reports out with exclusion clauses.
I maintain that if you aren't competent enough to undertake a Full Building Survey, then you are incompetent and should not be practicing.
That is why when I retired from practicing I resigned completely from the RICS
Post edited at 16:10
6
In reply to Timmd:
I don't see why not, if the surveyor is clearly in breach of the Terms and Conditions and Scope of Survey under which they are making their inspection. The problem is that the professional requirements have often been so watered down that there is no liability. Also if you go the "full mile" and report over and above what the Terms and Conditions State regarding the Scope of the Inspection in an attempt to be helpful, the surveyor leaves themselves open to not being covered by their Professional Liability Insurance! As I say in the above post, much of this unsatisfactory state of affairs is due to the fact that most clients don't want to pay a full fee for a full job, they want a cheap job, but with the surveyor still being fully liable for everything, and rather than resisting the watered down product, the RICS went along with it. Hence loads of exclusion clauses and a virtually useless report.
It's become a crazy situation, and I am glad i am out of it.
> Can you report people like that, as a fellow professional?
I don't see why not, if the surveyor is clearly in breach of the Terms and Conditions and Scope of Survey under which they are making their inspection. The problem is that the professional requirements have often been so watered down that there is no liability. Also if you go the "full mile" and report over and above what the Terms and Conditions State regarding the Scope of the Inspection in an attempt to be helpful, the surveyor leaves themselves open to not being covered by their Professional Liability Insurance! As I say in the above post, much of this unsatisfactory state of affairs is due to the fact that most clients don't want to pay a full fee for a full job, they want a cheap job, but with the surveyor still being fully liable for everything, and rather than resisting the watered down product, the RICS went along with it. Hence loads of exclusion clauses and a virtually useless report.
It's become a crazy situation, and I am glad i am out of it.
2
In reply to MG:
Yep, agree with your title, in my limited experience of course.
Last time I bought a house I got a full structural survey. He was only there a couple of hours. His report stated there was evidence of cavity wall tie corrosion, and he helpfully recommended a company that could fix this for me... As you can guess, I got a builder in and he could find no evidence whatsoever of this.
I'm sure he's got himself covered legally, so I didn't do anything about it, but it's basically fraud.
Yep, agree with your title, in my limited experience of course.
Last time I bought a house I got a full structural survey. He was only there a couple of hours. His report stated there was evidence of cavity wall tie corrosion, and he helpfully recommended a company that could fix this for me... As you can guess, I got a builder in and he could find no evidence whatsoever of this.
I'm sure he's got himself covered legally, so I didn't do anything about it, but it's basically fraud.
In reply to Timmd:
I could have, but see Trangia's comments on exclusion clauses.
I also made the mistake of phoning him up to point out that his report missed some fairly serious points, which I enumerated for him.
Next day I received a "revised" report listing these items, and apologising that "a page of my notes had become detached and overlooked when initially compiling the report". Yeah, right!!!
I let it go....there was enough stress in the house move anyway, with barely competent solicitors on both sides, and a work situation involving a move abroad (just after buying a new home in UK) so didn't feel inclined to pursue it. In hindsight, I should have.
> Can you report people like that, as a fellow professional?
I could have, but see Trangia's comments on exclusion clauses.
I also made the mistake of phoning him up to point out that his report missed some fairly serious points, which I enumerated for him.
Next day I received a "revised" report listing these items, and apologising that "a page of my notes had become detached and overlooked when initially compiling the report". Yeah, right!!!
I let it go....there was enough stress in the house move anyway, with barely competent solicitors on both sides, and a work situation involving a move abroad (just after buying a new home in UK) so didn't feel inclined to pursue it. In hindsight, I should have.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...