Information on approved UK ADR providers

A customer purchased a property after receiving a Level 2 Home Survey. Soon after moving in, the customer found an area of bedroom ceiling that was wet to the touch. A roofing contractor established that mortar was missing between the sandstone blocks of the chimney stack, that sections of stonework had moved and that the chimney needed to be dismantled and rebuilt. The customer also found rising damp and salt staining to a lower-level wall. The customer said the report should have identified both issues. The company said the report had noted weathered pointing to the chimney requiring future repair and had advised a check by a timber specialist for damp.

The adjudicator found that a photograph taken from the garden clearly showed missing mortar and displaced blocks, so the defects were visible from ground level within the scope of the inspection. These defects went beyond weathered pointing and should have been specifically identified and categorised as an urgent repair. The report’s general advice to obtain estimates applied only to defects the report had identified, so it did not cover these. No valuation evidence was provided, so the adjudicator used the estimated repair costs as the best available evidence of the diminution in value and awarded £10,000. The adjudicator did not uphold the damp complaint, because the customer’s photograph was taken some time after the inspection and could not show what was discoverable at the time.

Top tips

• Describe defects specifically and categorise them according to their seriousness. General caveats recommending further advice will not protect the company where a visible defect has not been identified in the report.
• Where the company disputes the amount claimed, provide alternative evidence of the diminution in value. Without it, an adjudicator may rely on the customer’s repair estimates.

A customer engaged a surveying company to undertake a Level 2 Home Survey of a property they wished to purchase. The survey said the main roof covering appeared in acceptable condition and that the minor repairs noted were not serious or urgent. After purchasing the property, the customer was told by a roofer that the roof needed urgent work to prevent collapse, and they paid £8,500 to replace it. While new loft insulation was being installed, a damaged asbestos tank was also found and removed at a cost of £200. The customer claimed £4,500 towards the roof, £200 for the asbestos removal and a letter of apology. The company said its survey photographs showed no evidence of defects to the roof.

The adjudicator found that the customer’s photographs were all taken during the roof works. The company’s survey photographs were therefore the best evidence of the roof’s condition at the time of the inspection. They showed no defects, and there was no trail of suspicion to follow, so the roof complaint was not upheld. The company had, however, accessed the loft and should have seen the disused tank and flagged the possible presence of asbestos, as the survey terms required. Because £200 would have had no material effect on the value of a property worth almost £400,000, the adjudicator found no financial loss. The company offered £200 as a goodwill gesture, which the customer accepted, and was directed to issue a written apology.

Top tips

• Keep a thorough photographic record of the inspection. It may be the best evidence of the property’s condition at the time of the survey.
• Always highlight any materials that may contain asbestos.
• A goodwill offer can be an effective way to resolve a modest claim.

A customer engaged a surveying company to undertake a Level 2 Home Survey of a property they wished to purchase. The report stated that the rear garden was overgrown and that, as a result, the surveyor could not ascertain whether species such as Japanese knotweed were present. More than four years later, a specialist inspection found an established knotweed infestation, estimated to have been present for eight to ten years. The customer said that, having raised the possibility of knotweed, the survey should have explained its significance and recommended a specialist survey before exchange of contracts. They claimed over £29,000, including treatment costs and diminution in value. The company said it had not identified knotweed or any vegetation resembling it, and that it had simply recorded a limitation on the inspection.

The adjudicator accepted that the report had specifically mentioned Japanese knotweed. However, the report had not identified knotweed, recorded any suspected knotweed or suggested it was likely to be present. The wording recorded a limitation on the inspection, not a defect or suspected defect. The report also warned that defects might exist in areas that could not be inspected and that its condition ratings were based on what was visible at the time. The adjudicator decided that a Level 2 surveyor was not required to recommend a specialist invasive species survey without visible evidence of knotweed itself. The company had provided its services to the standard to be reasonably expected and was not required to take any action.

Top tips

• Record clearly any limitations on the inspection, such as overgrown or inaccessible areas, and state that defects may exist in areas that could not be inspected.
• Customers may not appreciate the significance of an issue such as Japanese knotweed. Explaining in plain terms what a limitation could mean for the purchase can help avoid later disputes.

A customer engaged a surveying company to undertake a Level 3 Home Survey and valuation of a Grade II listed property they wished to purchase. After completing the purchase, the customer found honeybee colonies within the walls, along with problems affecting the roof, windows, drains and a concealed structural support. The customer said these should have been identified or referred for specialist investigation. The company had also later increased its reinstatement valuation from £692,000 to £1,050,000 and apologised for the oversight. The customer claimed £21,520, a refund of the survey fees and an apology. The company said the survey was a non-invasive visual inspection, that it had given several items a Condition Rating 3, and that it had recommended further investigation before exchange of contracts.

The adjudicator found that the report had noted bee activity, warned that it could affect wall stability and advised obtaining specialist advice. The surveyor was not required to identify the species. The roof had been given a Condition Rating 3 with a recommendation for further investigation, and the window defects found later were consistent with the deterioration already reported. The structural support had been concealed behind fitted cupboards, and the report had explained the limitations of a visual drainage inspection. However, the original reinstatement valuation had not properly reflected the property’s listed status. There was no evidence of financial loss, such as refused insurance cover or higher premiums. The customer had, though, been put to inconvenience in getting the error corrected, so the company was directed to pay £300.

Top tips

• Make sure reinstatement valuations reflect a property’s listed status and any specialist materials and methods of construction. An award for inconvenience can still be made where no financial loss is proven.
• Clear condition ratings and specific recommendations for further investigation before exchange of contracts will help show that a defect was properly reported, even if it later proves more extensive.