Homeowners are being forced to get creative in order to sell their properties. From installing ‘green’ fixtures to paying stamp duty on a buyer’s behalf, tricky times are prompting shrewd selling solutions.

However, people still need to have the condition and value of their revamped property verified. No matter how many new features may have been made, if it isn’t checked by a surveyor who is a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, sellers can’t be sure their property really is fit for sale, or is at the right price.

But surveyors aren’t infallible, which can present big problems for already overstretched homeowners. Our webchat with David Dalby from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Baroness Maggie Jones from the Surveyors Ombudsman Service Board, and Keith Richards from ABTA will tell you just what’s being done to help homeowners who come into dispute with surveyors. We also have Tom Leahy, a homebuyer who had a dispute with his surveyor, who will tell you about his experience.

Since June 2007, the Surveyors Ombudsman Service has operated across the UK, providing an independent overview in situations where surveyors are judged to have behaved unfairly, rudely, incompetently or have simply provided a poor service. David, Maggie and Keith will be explaining how the Surveyors Ombudsman Service can intervene and achieve successful resolutions to disputes. They will also be taking your questions about issues you may be having with surveyors yourself. Don’t waste time going ‘round the houses’ – log on to the chat and get the inside story here instead.

H: Host, Jayne Constantinis
D: David Dalby, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
M: Baroness Maggie Jones, Surveyors Ombudsman Service Board
K: Keith Richards, ABTA
T: Tom Leahy, homebuyer

H: Hello and welcome to the Homes and Gardens Show, I’m Jayne Constantinis. Now, we all know that it’s not the easiest of times to be selling a house. However, it’s as important as ever to have the condition and value of your property verified. Whether you’re selling or buying, if it isn't checked by a surveyor who is a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, you can't be sure the property really is fit for sale, or is at the right price. But surveyors aren't infallible, which can mean big problems for already overstretched homeowners. Well joining me today to talk about this is David Dalby from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Baroness Maggie Jones from the Surveyors Ombudsman Service Board, and Keith Richards whose an independent commentator on consumer issues. And we’ve also got Tom Leahy with us. He’s a homebuyer who once had a dispute with his surveyor, who will tell you about his experience, and he’s here to tell us about his story. Welcome to all of you, thank you for coming in. Maggie, can I begin by asking you why this service, this Surveyor’s scheme has been set up

M: Well we were set up by RICS business, an independent service, to provide consumer redress for individuals who may have concerns about the service that they’ve had from a surveyor. So it’s – it’s something that enables people on a completely free basis, to raise concerns, worries they have, concerns about the level of service, with an independent Ombudsman, and we are there to make sure that the scheme is provided efficiently, properly, and that cases are dealt with efficiently and quickly

H: Now David, you’re from the RICS, so what was not working before that means that you have initiated this new service?

D: Well I think it’s fair to say that the vast majority of problems arising out of disputes were resolved successfully. I think the gap in the marketplace was that if someone complained about a surveyor’s service, and went through that particular company’s surveyor – complaints procedure – and was dissatisfied, their only course really was to the legal services, which was time consuming, costly and not always very satisfactory. So what we wanted to be able to do was to say there was a clear free route to redress, dealing with some of the smaller issues as well as some of the larger ones, which wouldn’t necessarily go to court in the first place, things to do with customer service rather than actual complaints about defects, valuation, or whatever it may be

H: Keith, we’ve heard this word independent a couple of times there – but the SOS is funded by the RICS, so can consumers be completely comfortable about its independence?

K: I think anybody who uses the SOS can be completely comfortable about its independence, because the funding does not actually matter at the end of the day. There are many, many schemes around, ombudsmen schemes, and other similar alternatives to the court which are funded in a variety of different ways. The important thing is the way it’s structured, and certainly with the SOS, and Maggie’s role on the consumer board is, is to make sure that the ombudsmen scheme itself is run fairly and efficiently, so that everybody who uses it gets a fair outcome. To me that’s the important thing, the money is a sort of secondary issue, and sometimes is not particularly worth considering

H: Ok well let’s hear it from the horse’s mouth as it were, if you’ll forgive that analogy – was it fair, was it quick and was it easy? Because you’ve been through the service –

T: Yes I found it very fair, yes and quick and it was quite easy, yes they were very helpful right the way through. Different investigating officers and I felt they thoroughly investigated it

H: And would you have been – we mentioned keeping people out of court, would you have felt differently, would you have been more daunted at the prospect of having to go through the legal system?

T: Yes I think I would have been, yes, but I was willing to go through the legal system if the needed be, so it was very handy that the SOS was there to take it up because it saved a lot of expense obviously so I was very pleased, yes

H: It’s a good name isn’t it, SOS! Is that an important part of what you’re about, keeping people out of the legal system as it were?

M: Yes, the important thing about the scheme is it’s free, it’s free for all consumers, they don’t have to have a lawyer, in fact it’s an alternative to the legal system, and so the ombudsmen scheme that we use is absolutely independent, they provide ombudsmen services for a number of other sectors, and they’re fantastically experienced and very able to provide an independent judgement, so the judgement might be simply that someone should have a letter of apology, or it might be a financial award or it might be something practical that should be done to make redress to the consumer. But if people have a very major incident, or something that they really feel they want a proper legal decision on, then that’s a separate route that they have to pursue. Os this is a non-legal route, through to our ombudsmen service, and that’s the joy of it, It’s very quick – normally cases are done and dusted between 6-12 weeks, so they will get an answer in that period of time. Obviously as you know the legal service takes considerably longer

H: Yes

M: Than that

H: That’s astonishing, I was going to ask you how long a typical case might take, that is very, very quick isn’t it? Yes

M: I mean there were occasions when a case would take –

H: Yes

M: Longer, if they’re very complicated, but by and large our cases are dealt with quickly and efficiently and that’s our job to make sure that that happens

H: So Tom just give us a little bit more detail about your particular dispute, what happened?

T: I noticed a dip in my garage roof and after looking at the surveyor’s report I noticed that there was no mention of the dip or you know what I mean. And then I looked into it a bit further, support and things like that, and there was not adequate supports and there was no mention, in my opinion, of that, so basically I asked the firm, if they could, you know look at it again

H: And what response did you get from then when you went directly to them? How long after the survey was it that you spotted the problem?

T: It was a few months after the survey, yes that I noticed the dip, but it was several months after that before I actually made a complaint

H: Yes

T: So – because it actually started to collapse, the whole roof, and yes the firm that dealt with it, they did investigate through their complaints procedure, they came round, had another look at it and then they sent me a letter saying that they felt that everything was fine basically, but obviously I disagreed so then I went to RICS and onto the SOS, and they asked for further evidence and they said that, you know I had a case to answer, so they took it up and we went from there

H: Yes. And what was – how was the conflict resolved?

T: It was resolved with compensation for myself, and also a letter of apology from the company that they didn’t carry out quite what they should have done

H: Yes

T: So –

H: And you felt that that was a good outcome?

T: Yes. I would have liked more, but wouldn’t we all?

H: Yes

T: But yes I was happy, I got something and they were taken to task and it was proven that they did, you know, not carry out the survey properly

K: I think one of the important things about alternatives to court such as ombudsmen schemes is that if you go to court you get a judge imposing an outcome on both the sides, both sides, both parties. And often neither of those parties is extremely happy with the outcome even though they may have won, one of them may have won some compensation. Whereas things like ombudsmen schemes and things like the SOS is a prime example of that, you know, you are getting the ombudsmen sort of looking at it in very fair terms, and actually isn’t just bound by awarding money, although that’s obviously important to a lot of people, can actually look at alternatives, which a judge will never, ever do – trust me, I’m a lawyer. They don’t sort of deal with apologies or even asking the person whose being complained about to change their practices or their policies, or their procedures in some way that prevents them doing the same kind of harm to anybody else. Whereas ombudsmen schemes and the SOS as I say a prime example of this, you know its remit is much wider than just saying this is what I’m awarding –

H: Yes

K: You this much money and that’s all I can do

H: Yes, it’s a good point actually. Often what people really want is an apology. Now DJ has sent a question in which is very similar actually to the problem that you had Tom. He says “I bought a Victorian house 5 years ago and the survey didn’t pick up on the fact that the roof needs completely overhauling.” Can he – I’m assuming DJ is a he. Apologies if not. “Can I use the SOS to seek redress now, even though it’s 5 years on?” Maggie, can you deal with that?

M: Well we have a time limit normally that cases have to be raised with us within 12 months, and obviously it would have to be raised with the individual firm in the first instance anyway, but the time limit is normally 12 months

H: So the answer’s “no” then I’m afraid

M: Yes because a lot could happen

H: Yes

M: With any property, you know within a period of five years so it would be hard to say that a decision that was made or a surveyor’s report that was produced 5 years ago was still valid now. So there has to be some time limit

H:Yes sure. Susie, though I think might be in luck. She bought an end-of-terrace house last year. The agent’s particulars said the property’s roof was ideal for converting into a loft, but because of structural supporting tie rods, clearly this isn’t possible. The survey didn’t challenge the agent’s particulars. Could she seek compensation for this? So she’s alright in the time frame, is that a typical sort of case that you deal with?

M: A lot of the cases we deal with are things where people feel that something’s been missed in the surveyor’s report. And yes I think that’s one that we would certainly consider. Again it’s important to stress to people they have to raise it with the individual firm first, you can’t go straight to the SOS scheme, so – and all the RICS firms have got their own individual procedures, so you do have to go through that. Hopefully in not too much of a bureaucratic way. But I would have thought, and David might have a different view, that that was one that we would take on board

D: Potentially yes, I think one has to clarify what sort of survey the consumer had, because a lot of people assume that the mortgage valuation they get from their bank or building society is a survey, and it isn’t, it is a report for the lender which basically tells them whether it’s suitable security for a loan. So if all they’ve had is a mortgage valuation, it may well be that the particular problem that’s being referred to is outside the scope of that report.

H: Right

D: But it’s certainly worth investigating, it’s certainly worth taking up with the surveyor concerned. I think failing that, the fact that the estate agent appears to have misrepresented the property, may be another avenue for dispute. Whether that estate agent is signed up to the SOS or some other redress scheme, but certainly the estate agent will be obliged to be signed up to a form of redress, by legislation now –

H: Yes

D: So certainly it shouldn’t be dropped, it should be pursued

H: Ok. That’s good advice. Now you’ve raised another issue which is signing up to – are all surveyors, all firms of surveyors, part of the scheme?

D: No they’re not. All – I think again we need to differentiate between estate agents, who are obliged to sign up to a redress scheme, whether they’re members of the RICS or any other organisation, or no other organisation at all, surveyors who have to have a – chartered surveyors certainly have to have a form of complaints procedure, and somewhere to go at the end of that, be it to the SOS scheme or to any other form of arbitration scheme. So it’s not compulsory that they do, in fact over 6000 firms of the 9500 firms we regulate, as an institution are actually signed up to SOS

H: Oh yes, that’s a good percentage then

D: And it’s growing quite rapidly in fact as the scheme is getting better known and being seen by not only consumers but also by the profession itself as a, an effective way of bringing things forward

H: Yes I was going to ask you what their view of it is, the professionals themselves

D: I think it’s fair to say it’s improving. I think there was initial suspicion. It was actually trialled in Scotland originally and there I would have to say there was an initial suspicion that this was somehow interfering with the natural processes. In practical terms I think there’s now been a belief as everybody’s got more confident and comfortable with the process, that it actually is a very sensible way forward. And a lot of the issues that are raised actually within – Maggie will probably back me up on this – are around service issues rather than specific complaints about defects and problems and things like that – it is actually the perception of whether they’ve had good and proper service, and that’s an area which clearly is inappropriate for courts to deal with anyway

H: Yes well that’s exactly what you were saying isn’t it Keith? Very often – my husband’s a lawyer – and very often what the people want is that apology, they want an acknowledgement that they have been given a rough, a rough deal, isn’t it? Not necessarily the money. But James has sent in a question – “how can you find out who has SOS” – well he said credentials, but I think what he means is is part of the, is signed up to the scheme? Just ask them?

K: Well I think if you go onto the website you can search there for a list of those companies that have signed up to the SOS, so these are companies who have actively chosen to use the SOS service, as their means of providing their customers with redress when there’s a problem. So I think that’s probably the easiest way for them to find out

M: Yes. And we do have a logo that we’re encouraging people to put in their window or on their headed paper to reassure people that they’re members of that scheme, so increasingly that will become well known and people will see when they start to use a surveyor’s service, that they are a member of that scheme and they do have a redress when it goes wrong

H: That will give you a bit of reassurance, because actually I wanted to ask you all how can you avoid getting into the position where you have a conflict with your surveyor, you know is it a question of checking out their credentials, is it a question of how you manage the relationship? Give me your top tip

M: Oh I think the thing to say is that the vast majority of surveyors, the vast majority of the time provide a perfectly good service, but and of course yes make sure that they’re members of the, of a consumer redress scheme, you know that’s the important thing, but also just make sure that you’re clear about what you want, and put things in writing, get things back in writing, the – there is an awful lot of misunderstandings, particularly when people have conversations rather than putting things in writing, because people do misunderstand what’s being asked of them

D: I think that’s absolutely right, I think what most of the issues that we see, tend to be around misunderstandings of just what the scope of the service being offered is. Now that’s a very broad issue and we could spend the rest of the day talking about people’s understanding the house buying and selling process and all the professions that are involved in it, but I think it is very important for the consumer to be very clear what they want from their professional service provider, and manager those expectations. And it’s very important that the surveyor concerned also is very clear about what they’re providing, what they’re not providing, what their limits are so that those disputes can be resolved at the very early stage

H: Yes. Keith, what about you? How to avoid getting into a problem in the first place?

K: Well I think it’s a – you’ll never avoid getting into any – into certain problems. I – but having spent my entire professional career as a consumer rights’ lawyer, I mean I think there are two pieces of good advice. One is if you’re looking for somebody, a surveyor to do some work for you, go for personal recommendations, somebody whose used them before, because the service element, as David said, is just as important as the professional bit of the job that they’re doing. And the second thing is look for any badges of quality. Now obviously regulated by the RICS is an extremely good badge of quality to look for, because what sits behind that is a lot of very good, meaty material that makes sure that those surveyors who carry that badge are actually, you know, properly trained, keep themselves professional in their, in their development throughout the year, and also have the proper insurances and everything else in place. But as I say it isn’t a perfect world, disputes will arise, and that’s why if you’ve checked those two things it may minimise it, but it also gives you the avenue to go to –

H: Yes

K: If you do have a complaint, as Tom found out

H: Yes

K: Which makes that whole process even easier if a dispute arises

H: Tom, how did you find the SOS? What route did you take?

T: I found the SOS very approachable and I used several routes – email, post, and obviously telephone

H: Yes. And how did you find them in the first place?

T: Oh

H: How did you get to know about them?

T: Through the Citizens Advice Bureau and contacting RICS themselves who then asked me to see if they had a redress scheme, which they did, and took it from there basically

H: And sorry to – what you began to answer – what is the process like, is it all done as you were saying in writing, or by email, or do you go in in person?

T: Initially by telephone obviously I mean to see – we take it up from there and email

H: And how do you, Maggie, gather the evidence as it were? Is it all done in writing? Because I’m just thinking that some people might be a little bit put off at having to put things in writing who are maybe not used to working in that way, and they may think that the professionals have a little bit of a head start in that sort of way

M: Well we use an ombudsmen scheme that’s very experienced at dealing with people from very diverse backgrounds, and so I would say that they are very approachable. We tend not to do things, you know, on a person-to-person – basis, so it can all be done at arm’s length if you like. But telephone calls, emails, things in writing. Obviously if you’re dealing with a surveyor’s report and issues like that, then they will want to see the written evidence of what’s been provided, but beyond that I would say that we are very flexible in the way that we gather the evidence, and as Tom says I would say very approachable

T: I would say that I was very impressed with, you know, the, you know, the way they dealt with it really on, you know, from my point of view they were very helpful when I contacted them by phone or various different, you know, email and that, so – yes it was very good

H: Yes, yes. Not at all a daunting experience

T: Not at all, no. No I mean there was one instance where they asked if I could produce some drawings to back up my claim and I wasn’t really able to do that, so I was able to take pictures, and make notes on the pictures and email them through that, and that was acceptable –

H: Oh that’s good

T: Which was very –

H: Quite adaptable and flexible then?

K: I think Tom’s sort of hit the nail on the head there about, with the word daunting, because the last thing anybody wants when they’re complaining about somebody whose set them up as a professional, which is quite a daunting person to deal with at the best of times

H: Yes, yes

K: You know, lawyers, surveyors, whoever they may be, is not to feel that the act of complaining about them is going to be just as daunting, that there are going to be doors and hurdles to get through, all that kind of thing. So I think what anybody who has a complaint wants is to know where to go, what will happen, that it’s going to be quick, it’s going to be informal and it’s going to be cheap, or in this case free

H: Free! You can’t get any cheaper than that! Yes

K: And I think you know if you have all that information up front and clear, then I think people like Tom will be much more prepared to take that step. The last thing you want is a customer who is extremely unhappy about a professional, whose also probably unhappy about the profession, not feeling that they have an easy way of complaining, and going off and telling all their friends, and really sort of suffering in silence and not only does that profession then get a bad name, but that professional probably doesn’t get any business from that person again

H: Yes

K: And from any of that network of people that they’ve told. You know we’re all in the business of providing services, whether we’re plumbers, builders, surveyors, lawyers, whatever we’re doing, and you need customers to thrive and survive into the future

H: Of course. Let’s just consider this question here from Thomas Kissock who’s an estate agent. “How can the same property survey at a different value depending on which surveyor you use?” He recently had a property surveyed on behalf of a buyer at £130,000, the seller wasn’t happy with this, commissioned his own, which came in at £160,000. The surveys were done within a few days of each other at different times. But I – sorry by different firms. “Needless to say the hard fought deal was lost. Does the same criteria not apply irrespective of who does the survey?” David I’m going to fire that one at you

D: I thought you might! I had feeling that was coming my way

H: Looking a bit complacent there for a moment!

D: Valuation isn’t an exact science, I think that’s the starting point, and any valuer is going to provide an opinion based on the best evidence available to them. Now obviously I don’t know the circumstances of this particular case, but it may well be, and I suspect it was the case that the first survey, or the valuation that was commissioned was probably a mortgage evaluation, and therefore that value is looking at it from the lender’s perspective in terms of the security for a loan. An independent valuation then commissioned by the individual, again one doesn’t know the terms of reference that were given on that – most – in fact all valuers presented with firm evidence, to support a figure, will look at their valuation again, and I suspect in that particular instance had that second valuation been based on other evidence that could have been presented to the first surveyor, they may well have been prepared to look at it again and adjust their figure, providing that evidence was firm evidence and not hearsay about what Mrs Smith round the corner happened to sell her property for.

H: That’s – you raise an interesting point there, in fact a question that came in a little while back, I’ve missed it now – but can you query, can you challenge a valuation that you get from a surveyor?

K: Well I’m speaking as a lawyer, I’d say you should be able to challenge anything, but the point is that when you’re employing a professional you are relying on their professional expertise, their experience, to give you the information that you’re employing them for, so challenging something like a valuation I would say you’d be, you’d have to be a pretty good, probably a valuer yourself, in order to do that. But yes of course you can challenge it, but you know what you’re doing is you’re relying on somebody’s expertise to give you that information, so I’d say it would be quite a difficult thing to do. But of course if you feel that it is so woefully inadequate, completely wrong, incompetent, then of course the best way to look at that would be to go and get another expert to challenge the first expert’s point of view

H: Yes

K: Because that’s effectively what you would need at that kind of level of dispute

H: Yes. Terence has sent us an interesting question, he says “won’t this regulation just push valuers into undervaluing for fear of being in hot water once a selling – a seller – is seeking resale?” Does that make sense? Are valuers going to undervalue because they’re worried about the consequences if not

D: I would have to say no and in fact of course undervaluing is just as much a course of complaint as overvaluing, so in that sense any valuer producing a report, whoever it’s for, for the end user or consumer lender, whoever it may be, has got to do it on a professional basis, based on the evidence that’s available to them, and again the thing to stress is a valuer is actually valuing as at today. I think one of the big issues we’re seeing at the moment,because of the present market, is in a falling market there is a feeling that perhaps people are going to take too cautious a view in anticipation of what the market might do, rather than what’s actually here today, and it’s important they’re valuing accurately on today’s evidence

H: Ok. We’ve had a statement in really from Trevor, which is interesting. He says “this scheme is excellent, as it will ensure people buying older properties in particular have adequate protection in the event of getting a nasty surprise on purchase and moving in.” So that’s a nice sort of endorsement Maggie for you. Just give us your final words on the scheme and how successful it’s being and hopefully will be in the future

M: Well I think it’s a great news story for consumers and it’s great to be here today to have the chance to publicise it, because we’d like more people to be aware of it and to have confidence in the surveyor’s service, but also to feel that if things go wrong there is a fallback so it is a good news, it strengthens consumers enormously in this sector and you know I would encourage people, if in doubt, to ask whether or not the concerns that they have could be dealt with by the SOS. So yes it’s a good news story

H: And it’s free!

M: And it’s free!

H: And Tom you had a very good experience –

T: Yes, yes

H: So thank you for coming in and sharing that with us. In fact thank you to all my guests and I hope we’ve answered all of your questions, but if there’s anything else you’d like to know then go to the website of course which is www.sosadvice.org.uk. Thank you for watching and see you again soon, bye bye