Our surveyor missed something on his survey which is now going to cost us several grand to sort out.
They came out to do a site visit last week and almost immediately spotted why they’d not noticed the issue.
We’ve not had to do anything like this in the past so anyone have any input on how the process works?
We are hoping to not have to go down the complaints route but just trying to get an idea on what may be involved should we have to.

I have two RICS surveyor friends, it’s happened to them a few times. Takes ages to sort out..

Yeah, I’m guessing it’s not a quick process.
As I say, I hope we don’t have to go down the complaints route and that their indemnity insurance can do something (if that’s what they do).

A fiend of ours (WPC retired due to ill health) went through this and was given the brush-off but they didn’t reckon with her determination to get redress, she ended up taking them to Court and got her settlement.

They all have PI insurance for this very kind of mistake.

RICS will only get involved if the complaint can’t be settled between yourself and the firm. If you’re not happy with the result, you’ll then move to ADR (alternative dispute resolution)

Check your terms of engagement, which will have the complaints handling procedure included, and what method of ADR is to be included.

Anyone gone through the complaint procedure with a RICS surveyor?

My wife. Most days.

Todays complaint will be about taking the bins out. Probably.

Serious answer? ….He’s just a human being that makes mistakes like everyone else. Sort it out between yourselves / his firm.

The complaints procedure should be a remedy of last resort before you go to court

How much will it actually cost you to remedy the problem and would knowing about it have put you off buying the house?

In the end most disputes can be solved by sitting down amicably with a cup of coffee and discussing the matter. Exchanging letters will cost time and money and if it goes as far as lawyers the bastards will stretch it out for years and screw both parties for every penny.

So I would phone the manager and suggest a meeting. Keep it civil and informal and you’ll save years of nervous energy and hassle.

We’ve had a meeting at the house which was amicable.
We don’t want to go down the complaint route but will look at it if we need to.
Had we known of the issue it would have had an impact on us buying the house either by negotiating the price or pulling out.
It was the same reason we pulled out of a house a few months prior to buying this one.

What was the problem, if I may ask?

What was the problem, if I may ask?

Asbestos.
They commented on the report that they were pleased to say that there appears to be no asbestos in the soffits. That’s exactly where it is and, when they looked at it again, said straight away that it looked like it had been painted.

Possibly a bit foolish of them to comment on the “lack of” asbestos. If they are Chartered Surveyors they will have professional indemnity insurance. If not done already l would be asking them to pay for removal of the asbestos and new soffites. Whether they want to refer this to their insurers or just pay up direct doesn’t really matter to you, but if they don’t play ball you can follow their formal complaints procedure (which, again, they should have).

Appears to be no asbestos.
vs
There is no asbestos.

Quote from the survey report:
” I am, however, fairly sure that, pleasingly, there appears to be no asbestos content in the
external soffit boards serving this dwelling.”

That’s nowhere near the same as

”there’s no asbestos”

….which, as any first year apprentice surveyor knows, can only be established through testing and analysis.

I’m fairly sure that there appears to be no chance of a complaint being upheld by a court or indeed the RICS.

Ambiguous statements are the stock in trade of the valuation surveyor.

Ambiguous statements are the stock in trade of the valuation surveyor.

It wasn’t a valuation survey, it was a RICS homebuyers survey.

But yet you based your perceived valuation of the house on it?

Standard Exclusion in the Home Buyer report Terms of Engagement I’m afraid.
Such reports are rarely of any value. IMO they are mis-sold most of the time. Stoner Ex-RICS, resigned in disgust.

https://www.rics.org/globalassets/rics-website/media/upholding-professional-standards/sector-standards/building-surveying/homebuyer-report-survey-description-and-standard-terms-of-engagement-rics.pdf

Dangerous materials, contamination and environmental issues
The surveyor does not make any enquiries about contamination or other environmental dangers.
However, if the surveyor suspects a problem, he or she should recommend a further investigation.
The surveyor may assume that no harmful or dangerous materials have been used in the
construction, and does not have a duty to justify making this assumption. However, if the inspection
shows that these materials have been used, the surveyor must report this and ask for further
instructions.
The surveyor does not carry out an asbestos inspection and does not act as an asbestos inspector
when inspecting properties that may fall within the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. With flats,
the surveyor assumes that there is a ‘dutyholder’ (as defined in the regulations), and that in place are
an asbestos register and an effective management plan which does not present a significant risk to
health or need any immediate payment. The surveyor does not consult the dutyholder.

The service does not include an asbestos inspection that
may fall within the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012
(SI 2012/632). However, asbestos containing materials,
if
suspected, should be reported and cross-referenced to
section J3 Risks to people.

If he doesnt suspect anything then he doenst have to do anything. And if painted then he can claim that there wasnt enough information to identify it as a building material. Although they are supposed to be on the look out for it everywhere that they might expect to see it.

” I am, however, fairly sure that, pleasingly, there appears to be no asbestos content in the
external soffit boards serving this dwelling.”

perchypanther
That’s nowhere near the same as

”there’s no asbestos”

….which, as any first year apprentice surveyor knows, can only be established through testing and analysis.

I’m fairly sure that there appears to be no chance of a complaint being upheld by a court or indeed the RICS.

Ambiguous statements are the stock in trade of the valuation surveyor.

I disagree – the surveyor knows the homebuyer is relying on their expertise in determining whether or not to purchase the property, and has opined in such as way as to convey the impression that there is no asbestos in the soffits.

If the surveyor was unsure, he shouldn’t have said “I am fairly sure”. It’s an assumption of responsibility over and above the standard duty of the reasonably competent surveyor.

If the surveyor was unsure, he shouldn’t have said “I am fairly sure”. It’s an assumption of responsibility over and above the standard duty of the reasonably competent surveyor.

Agreed…he shouldn’t have.

He instead chose to use an ambiguous sentence which is meaningless inthe context of the protective Standard Exclusion clauses as noted by Stoner above.

Unfortunately  there is no real recourse in law or otherwise because the surveyor was a bit of a dick who can’t string a decent sentence together.

Perchy (ex RICS) resigned in poverty

Unless the asbestos is disturbed or degrading in some way why go to the expense of having it removed? Its a few years since I done Asbestos Awareness training but my recollection is that its only dangerous if its disturbed or degrading.
Just a personal thing but I’m not entirely sure I’d pull out of a house sale due to it….in fact living in a 70’s Wimpey house I’d be surprised if my soffits didn’t contain some.

The service does not include an asbestos inspection that
may fall within the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012
(SI 2012/632). However, asbestos containing materials,
if
suspected, should be reported and cross-referenced to
section J3 Risks to people.

That’s what I read too which lead me to believe we may have a route for some recourse.
J3:

Worcestershire, and the Malvern area in particular, has been identified as being an area where
there is a potentially above average risk of adverse affect from Radon gas emissions. This is a
naturally occurring gas caused by a gradual breakdown of elements in bedrock and percolates
up through soil. It has been found to accumulate in some properties to levels where there is a
health hazard.

No mention of the possibility of asbestos even though the house was built in 1975. The guy who did the asbestos testing, once it had been discovered, said that he was very surprised that the surveyor did not recommend an asbestos survey purely based on the age of the house.

its only dangerous if its disturbed or degrading.

We’re in the process off refurbing the house and it was discovered by the company who are replacing the fascia boards,soffits, guttering etc..

The RICS guys seem to cover themselves by saying things like ” can’t establish if the floors are dodgy as they are covered in carpet.” Or “Unable to look in loft as it was full of insulation!”

One of the problems IMO is that many estate agents are also members of RICS. For some reason that seems to give confidence to buyers. When all it really means is they are sales people, interesting in selling the house regardless of the condition and there could be a conflict of interests. It always amuses me when the RICS give their view on house prices, they don’t disclose how many of their members make serious cash from selling them.

Nothing against the RICS, I have a friend or two with the initials after their names, but they work for conservation groups!!

There a reason I’m not in the RICS

based around the completely crap people they allow in there

Agreed…he shouldn’t have.

He instead chose to use an ambiguous sentence which is meaningless inthe context of the protective Standard Exclusion clauses as noted by Stoner above.

Unfortunately there is no real recourse in law or otherwise because the surveyor was a bit of a dick who can’t string a decent sentence together.

Perchy (ex RICS) resigned in poverty

Again, I disagree. The clause says that he doesn’t make any enquiries, but by making the statement he did he arguably assumed a responsibility over and above what would be excluded by the clause (if, indeed, that clause itself would be considered reasonable by a court).

(English solicitor dealing with matters including professional negligence claims against surveyors)

You should take on stevied’s case then.

I wish you both the best of luck. Let us know how you get on.

Thanks for the input chaps.
They have until next weekend to respond so will update when I get a reply.

So he’s come back and, basically, said that because it appears to have been painted over he did all he could do.
Having had a good look around (now that we know there’s asbestos there) I’ve discovered an area of the soffits where there is not paint and you can see a mottled area.
This is a fairly large area that he should have spotted if he had a proper look.

is the material identifiable from the ground?

Difficult to tell as it was getting dark. Definitely a different colour and had a sparkle under the camera flash.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/tmrpDDFuDTjAdZ3S9

hmm Its fairly obvious that it is likely to be asbestos from that pic. But I’m used to seeing asbestos sofits.

I’m guessing a bog standard passage added to your survey without actually looking.

A better quality pic:

Was the ivy there when it was inspected or has that been removed since?

No, the ivy has not been touched. That had long been removed by the looks of it.

There’s also this pic, taken when we had the 2nd viewing:

Unfortunately there is no real recourse in law or otherwise because the surveyor was a bit of a dick who can’t string a decent sentence together.

Well only the court can ultimately decide that. He was being paid to write a coherent report for a lay recipient so there is an argument that language which either intentionally or recklessly obfuscated the meaning, was negligent. He would have been better to have remained silent on the topic of asbestos. If it is apparent that the boards are painted he could have gone further and said “as the soffits have been painted, and they were examined only from ground level I cannot comment on the underlying materials”. The question for the court is what would the reasonable recipient of the report have understood from “I am fairly sure” and “pleasingly”.

Now how much extra does it cost to get asbestos soffits removed v’s ordinary ones (bearing in mind the scaffolding, replacement costs etc were all happening anyway?). Probably less than the legal fees if it goes to court. So there is certainly a “real recourse [other than law]…”. The risk for the OP is that they* want to make a point / validate their “get out clauses” and throw good lawyers at it, he loses (which is a possibility) and the court decide he should pay the costs. (*and they may mean their insurers).

It’s just asbestos cement sheeting. There’s no point in subjecting yourself to the stress and expense of a court case over that; just go to the dump, sign out the special poly sheet you need, remove the sheeting while wearing a mask and keeping everything damp then wrap it up and take it back to the dump.

THis is what the 3 samples came back with:

1 70AGR/1 BOARD NADIS INSULATING BOARD
2 70AGR/2 SOFFIT GABLE END-INSULATION BOARD AMOSITE/CHRYSOTILE INSULATING BOARD
3 70AGR/3 SOFFIT REAR-INSULATION BOARD AMOSITE/CHRYSOTILE INSULATING BOARD

It’s just asbestos cement sheeting. There’s no point in subjecting yourself to the stress and expense of a court case over that; just go to the dump, sign out the special poly sheet you need, remove the sheeting while wearing a mask and keeping everything damp then wrap it up and take it back to the dump.

Please don’t do this.

Take proper advice based on the test results and condition of the board.

That amount of AIB will almost certainly need a licensed contractor to remove and dispose.