SAVA Technical Bulletin For registered members of the SAVA Scheme
Issue 16 | June 2013 All content © National Energy Services, Ltd Welcome to the latest issue of the SAVA Technical Bulletin. The bulletin focuses on Home Condition Surveys and associated non-energy issues. We trust that you will find the bulletin useful for your day-to-day work and we welcome any feedback you have about what you would like to see covered in future editions. The contents of this technical bulletin may supersede certain scheme rules or requirements appearing in the Product Rules, Inspection and Reporting Requirements, training manuals or elsewhere. Members must therefore ensure that they have read and understood this document.
IN THIS ISSUE
The cost of flood risk
Private drainage
Two moisture meter tales
Limitation of inspections photo competition
Desktop and mobile tools for surveyors
Case study: Survey of a flat
The cost of flood risk Hundreds of thousands of householders who own property at risk of flooding face steep increases in their home insurance costs or risk losing their home altogether. In 2000 an estimated 200,000 properties were identified as being at high risk of flooding and as having been refused insurance. As a consequence insurers agreed a Statement of Principles with the government to make sure that flood risk insurance remained available for high risk homes. Obviously there was always the risk that when renewing cover, flood victims would find that insurance was at a high (but subsidised) premium and with an even higher excess, but at least cover remained available. The agreement runs out on 30 June 2013, creating uncertainty as to whether properties in locations that have previously flooded will be able to obtain cover. Against a background of unusually wet weather over the last few months there has been continual failure to find a workable agreement between government and insurers. In a latest press release on 16 May 2013, the Association of British Insurers stated:
“ABI members have today confirmed to the Government that they will continue to voluntarily meet their commitments to offering flood insurance for an extra month after the current industry flood insurance agreement expires on 30 June, while discussions with the Government on the future of flood insurance continue.” Otto Thoresen, Director General, Association of British Insurers, said: “The Government and the ABI continue in constructive discussions on the future of flood insurance, specifically on how the components of the ABI’s Flood Re proposal can be designed to best meet the objectives of the Government, the insurance industry and, most importantly, the needs of those at risk of flooding.
(Continued on page 2)
“Insurers continue to offer householders access to flood insurance while negotiations with the Government continue.
Page 1 of 10
SAVA Technical Bulletin Issue 16 | June 20 13 | ©Nation al Energy Services (Continued from page 1) “There are still important issues to resolve and no deal has been reached, but negotiations are advanced and we will bring negotiations to a conclusion as soon as practicable. After the Statement of Principles expires on 30th June, ABI members have agreed that they will continue to meet their commitments voluntarily for one additional month until July 31st, to ensure that their customers across the UK can continue to access insurance while discussions are concluded.” While this might provide some reassurance temporarily for householders at risk, it means that we as surveyors conducting HCS’s on such properties are faced with the need to be clear in the advice we give against a confused background. We already identify in Section C if a property is at risk of flooding but we should also give clear warnings to our clients in these circumstances: we should identify any high risk properties and point out in Section C that legal advisers must verify that they can obtain full, ongoing insurance cover. If not, then the property is at risk of being blighted and might have limited saleability in the future.
Private drainage In the last edition we drew your attention to a new information paper covering private drainage that will be added to those available to attach to the HCS. Mike Samphier commented in response to the article as follows: “I have lived for many years in properties with septic tanks, generally without problems. However, one issue that I would draw colleagues attention to is the planting of trees, shrubs or fruit bushes in the vicinity of these tanks. In addition to the normal risk of root penetration into faulty mortar it should be noted that the outflow pipe from the tank may be one of the slotted plastic pattern frequently used for field drains. As I know to my cost the roots from trees and shrubs can completely block such pipes in a relatively short period.” Mike raises a very valid point and in the HCS, while we are only commenting on the defects present at the time of inspection, it is reasonable to identify to your client potential issues and suspected hidden defects. The latter might require further investigation. Returning to the example of an old septic tank illustrated in the previous article, it is obvious that the septic tank itself has seen better days (see photo 1 and 2). The growth of nettles around the twin chamber tank is an indication that the brick walls of the chamber are leaching nutrients into the surrounding subsoil.
Photos 2: Note the nettles growing around the old chambers septic tank.
An inspection of the adjoining field also suggests the line of the field drains system connected to the septic tank (see photo 3). The condition of the septic tank itself was enough to cause the surveyor to recommend further investigation. If the nettles were growing among trees or shrubs in the field this might also cause additional concern and lead to a recommendation that the field drains also be inspected for evidence of root damage, as Mike suggests.
(Continued on page 3)
Photo 3: The septic tank in photos 1 and 2 is situated in the clump of trees at the top of photo 3. Drains from the tank fan out into the field in the picture and the distribution of the nutrient rich outflow from the field drains is evident from the growth of nettles in the field. Photos 1: An old two chamber septic tank.
Page 2 of 10
SAVA Technical Bulletin Issue 16 | June 20 13 | ŠNation al Energy Services (Continued from page 2) One way to comment in the HCS on such a situation might be: The outflow from the septic tank/small package treatment plant leads into a series of field drains. The pattern of vegetation growth in the fields indicates that the drains are distributing the nutrient rich contents of the tank. The roots of larger shrubs and/or trees can cause harm to field drains but none were present. In a situation where trees or shrubs are actually present comment as follows might be appropriate: The outflow from the septic tank/ small package treatment plant leads into a series of field drains. The pattern of vegetation growth in the fields indicates that the drains are distributing the nutrient rich contents of the tank. There are some large shrubs/ trees growing close to the suspected location of the field drains and their roots can cause harm to field drains. It is recommended that further investigation of the drains is undertaken by a suitably qualified drainage expert to check for the possible presence of roots and consequential damage to the field drains. This should be done before you make a legal commitment to purchase. Condition Rating 3. One additional consideration that might lead you to use the second suggested paragraph in your HCS is the trees around the septic tank (photo 3). The roots of these trees might be contributing to the suspected damage to the septic tank walls. They also could be affecting the outflow pipes.
Moisture meters are not just for... A recent survey for a developer taking a home in part exchange reminded me of the value of good site notes and also of the value of using your moisture meter throughout the property. The survey was carried out on a house that was approximately 15 years old (see photo 1 on the right). The owner explained that they had decided to buy a new house as the cost of updating the kitchen and bathroom fittings in this current model was more expensive and far more disruptive than moving to a brand new home. Upon completing the survey the owner asked if there were any issues to worry about. While telling them of the list of minor defects I pointed out that there was a damp stain on the ceiling of the utility room (see photo 2). The stain had proved to be dry when I poked the ceiling with the prongs of my moisture meter so I was not unduly concerned. As I explained to the owner, the shower tray was located somewhere above and while the shower tray seal was split (see photo 3) at the back, I thought that this stain was not directly below the shower tray. I ventured that maybe the stain was the visible evidence of a previous minor leak.
Photo 1: 15 year old house
It was only when I was drafting the report and reviewing my site notes that I noticed my error. When reviewing my floor plans I noticed that the en-suite shower was actually not in the position I had recalled when talking to the owner. The presence of an airing cupboard placed the shower tray around a metre more toward the middle of the ceiling of the utility room below. Therefore the damp stain was directly below the area of the shower tray where the split seal had been noted. Ergo, the stain was quite likely directly connected. Assuming that the shower had not been used recently, the stain might have simply dried out in the utility room ceiling surface. Irrespective of the relative position of the stain in relation to the shower tray, the fact that there is a stain at all should be regarded as suspicious. It is then up to the surveyor to determine how serious an issue this might be and advise accordingly. A dry stain with little direct contact with a potential risky source such as a shower tray might lead us to report in the HCR that this is a Condition Rating 1: there is no defect, there is no repair and redecoration (maintenance) will take care of the cosmetic issue of the unsightly small stain.
Photo 2: On ceiling next to the extractor fan.
Photo 3: Shower tray is split. Note the black line of mound along the edge where the tiles meet the shower tray.
A stain giving a high moisture meter reading on the other hand would have immediately alerted the surveyor to the potential risk and a call for further investigation. Especially if visual evidence cannot be found during the survey inspection and invasive investigation is needed to remove shower tray panels and raise floor boards.
(Continued on page 4)
Page 3 of 10
SAVA Technical Bulletin Issue 16 | June 20 13 | ©Nation al Energy Services
Limitations of inspections?
(Continued from page 3) A dry stain immediately under a shower tray and the risk of hidden dampness penetrating to concealed areas below the shower tray might also cause the more wary surveyor to call for further investigation and categorise the issue as a Condition Rating 3. But how many of you would be wary?
Another tale This time it is a tale of what could be lurking in hidden places around showers and how easy it is for professionals to misinterpret the evidence. But don’t worry, thankfully the professionals here are insurance loss adjusters. One day a couple living in a rather nice detached house noticed a "funny damp smell" coming from the en-suite bathroom. While searching for the source of the smell they removed the bottom fascia off the shower tray to expose the area below the shower tray and saw it was black with mould and the flooring and plaster rotten at the back (see photo 4).
Photo 5: Rotten control vales.
Having started exploring they then removed the shower control valve. They noticed that the wooden back-plate to which the control valve was mounted was also black and rotten (see photo 5). Spurred on by their discoveries, they then started to remove tiles and before long, to find where the problem was coming from, they had removed all the tiles below the control valve to expose the whole damp area. Their second call to the insurers led to another visit from a different loss adjuster. This time he agreed the problem was in fact a faulty control valve and eventually the insurer paid out for the shower to be repaired. The moral of this story is that dampness in hidden areas below and around shower trays or other wet areas, or even under defective flat and other roofs can remain hidden until it is too late to affect a simple repair. The cost of such defects can be significant.
Photo 4: The area below the shower tray. Note the rotten timber and black mould.
The couple called their insurers, who sent out a loss adjuster. In short he said: "Sorry this is not an insurance issue but is a maintenance issue; you need to reseal the shower tray with silicon and re-grout the tiles." The couple being conscientious did as they were advised. A few months passed and the smell failed to disappear. The couple started to investigate again. They removed the bottom facia from the shower tray again to reveal even more rot and damp than before.
In the previous issue of this technical bulletin we published a photo supplied by on of our surveyors showing how an attack of ’Triffids’ hampered his surveying activities. We offered a chance to win a credit toward one of our training courses for the best photo submitted of a similarly challenging situation.
Both episodes are a reminder that the moisture meter is a tool that is not just for taking readings at lower walls. It is useful around window and door openings; around chimneys; at the tops of walls where they are conjoined to the roof; around heating and plumbing installations; in roof spaces to check the moisture content of timbers (particularly below backs of chimneys and flat areas of roofing and valleys); and the moisture meter is invaluable around baths, showers and other sanitary wear. Use your moisture meter frequently during your inspection. Use it where moisture can get in to a building and around areas where plumbing and heating are known to be located. Your moisture meter (like a dog is a man’s best friend) is the surveyor’s best friend.
Brian Dodds is the lucky surveyor who will receive a training course credit. He sent this intriguing shot and explained: “During a November inspection I was faced with a series of trees around a 1920's semi detached property in Doncaster. “The photo shows (from a safe distance!) the trees which had been left without any husbandry, probably since getting on for when the house was built in some cases. “I think this may be the largest class 1 hardwood tree, closest to a main house, that surveyors have come across in recent times.” Have you been confronted with a similar limitation during one of your inspections or other challenging situation while conducting a survey? Here is another chance to enter our competition and to win a credit toward one of our training courses. The best entry will be selected by our panel of judges. Email your photo to: bulletins@nesltd.co.uk.
Page 4 of 10
SAVA Technical Bulletin Issue 16 | June 20 13 | ©Nation al Energy Services
New desktop and mobile tools for surveyors The increasing amounts of freely available, property-based information on the Internet can place surveyors in a quandary: Do we ignore this ‘public domain’ information and risk criticism, or do we take account of the various data available and potentially increase our liability by carrying out a partial (and potentially ineffective) environmental assessment? The fact is that we at least need to be aware of any available data and use whatever fact based websites are available to inform our opinions. Many of us use various web sites to help us carry out desktop research before our on site inspection of the property and use this to inform the inspection and report. In this article we feature some relatively new web sites so that you can assess for yourselves whether they suit your needs and inform your desk top review.
Plant Tracker app & website
We are grateful to Philip Santo for bringing to our attention an application for smart phone users called PlantTracker; access the app here: http:// planttracker.naturelocator.org/ This app has been put together as a joint venture between the Environment Agency, the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, the GB Non-Native Species Secretariat and the University of Bristol (who maintain the site). The app is a useful aid to surveyors working on site as it includes information such as photos of plants at different times of year to help identify invasive plant species, including of course Japanese Knotweed, while you are at the property. The associated website also allows you to view online national data collected by all users. The aim of PlantTracker is to use crowdsourcing techniques to map some of the UK’s most problematic invasive, non-native plant species, such as Japanese knotweed.
It is hoped that the app will significantly add to current records of the extent of invasive weeds in the UK, which could help combat their spread and allow their management to be more effective. You can therefore contribute to PlantTracker with your own sighting and add significantly to the national knowledge of this problem. You will see (if you click on the web link, then click on the tab labelled Results, and then on the icon for Japanese Knotweed) just how many sightings of this particular invasive plant have already been recorded. Using this feature of the website as part of your desk top research could prove invaluable.
The Coal Authority interactive map viewer Many of you who work in areas where coal and similar mining activity has taken place will be aware of the need to recommend a CON29 mining search in the mining entry in section C of the HCS. These are specialist searches that are required in the counties defined as Coal and Brine Consultation Areas.
The Law Society and Coal Authority produced a joint guide that can be downloaded from the following this link: http://coal.decc.gov.uk/en/coal/ cms/services/reports/en_cy/ en_cy_notes/en_cy_notes.aspx The Coal Authority also offers an interactive mapping tool (see over the page) that allows you to view selected coal mining information in your area. It is extracted from the national coal mining database held and maintained by the Coal Authority. Access the tool via this link: http://coal.decc.gov.uk/ en/coal/cms/publications/data/ map/map.aspx This new tool is NOT a substitute for the CON29 Coal Mining Report (which the legal adviser must obtain) but is quick and easy to use. (Continued on page 6)
Page 5 of 10
SAVA Technical Bulletin Issue 16 | June 20 13 | ©Nation al Energy Services Click on the third line: Download coal mining information as a pdf’. This should take you to another page where you can download a map of the relevant council area. Not only do these maps identify the general ‘Reporting area’ but also highlight Development High Risk areas (shown in dark grey in the image below). If the map is enlarged, these areas can be related to street layouts. Knowledge of freely available data that might be relevant to your inspection is always worth consulting as part of a HCS desktop study. These plans can help inform your opinion of the property you are inspecting. The fact that a property is situated in a Development High Risk area, for example, could add weight to any recommendations you make for further investigation or clarify your thoughts and justification in terms of determining a Condition Rating 2 or 3. Are there other new tools you’d like to bring to our attention? If you have found a useful website or smart phone app that aids your survey knowledge email us bulletins@nesltd.co.uk.
(Continued from page 5) It provides more detailed pictorial confirmation of areas that are designated in accordance with the guide. However, what is potentially more informative is the Coal Authority’s risk based approach to managing the ‘environmental legacy of coal mining’. In addition to the Coal Mining Reporting area, the Authority provides information on: Development Low Risk Areas–these are within the coal mining reporting areas but pose lower risk to property development activities; Development High Risk Areas–these areas, derived from a number of coal mining features, have the potential for instability or a degree of risk from the legacy of coal mining operations. These features include Mine Entries with Potential Zone of Influence, Shallow Coal Mining Workings (to a depth of 30 metres), Mine Gas Sites and Areas, Surface Mining (Opencast) Sites, Fissures (Geological Features) and Past Surface Hazards. All the features are currently included in Coal Authority Coal Mining Reports but are also shown on freely available maps that can be downloaded as PDF files. If you scroll down the interactive mapping tool page, you should see a sub section entitled ‘Other ways to use and view the coal mining information’.
Page 6 of 10
SAVA Technical Bulletin Issue 16 | June 20 13 | ©Nation al Energy Services
Case Study— survey of a flat A simple instruction, from a recommendation by an estate agent selling a flat, provided a surveyor recently with a salutary reminder of the benefit of getting to know your client and undertaking thorough desk top research before (and after) inspection. Desk top research and inspection of the property revealed the building to be Grade II listed, a fact that had so far been unknown to the client. The estate agent’s details had not mentioned this and his solicitor had not made him aware of the fact either.
keen to know of any defect-related problems with the property. The surveyor therefore agreed to carry out a Home Condition Survey (HCS) and to discuss his findings with the client.
The property Flat 3 (as it shall now be known) is part of a traditionally built ‘wing’ at the rear of an 18th century coaching inn, believed to originally have formed a storage room or servants quarters. The main building is now primarily a shop which trades as a photographic studio and there are flats on the upper floors. Flat 3 is above the rear part of the photographic studio behind the main building, as seen in photos 1, 2 and 3.
The surveyor had received instructions to carry out a condition survey for the buyer of a one-bedroom first floor flat in in November 2012. He was advised that exchange of contracts was due to occur in two weeks time. The suggestion was therefore that everyone wanted to tie things up quickly and that the surveyor needed to inspect and report equally swiftly. The buyer was a local client who planned to ‘downsize’ for his retirement. The property appealed to him principally because it was among the lowest of asking prices available in the town. In trying to determine exactly what the client required, it became clear that he was already aware of a number of condition-related issues with the flat. The client had been a carpenter and said that he would enjoy carrying out many of the repairs himself in his imminent retirement. What he wanted was an independent pair of eyes to establish if there was anything that he himself had not noticed. As he would not be left with much spare money after the sale of his current home, he was
As he had visited a different flat in the same building previously, the surveyor had some local background knowledge of the buildings in this street. This was invaluable as he was aware that the building might be listed. He therefore checked the relevant council website and his suspicion was confirm, i.e. that Flat 3, as part of the building, was Grade II listed. The National Heritage List for England map clearly showed that the listing for the building included the wing, gardens and outbuildings to the rear, including Flat 3. Finally, a telephone call to the council’s Planning Department confirmed that Flat 3 was indeed Grade II listed. The surveyor then checked with his client to check whether he was aware of the listed status of the property as it seemed strange to the surveyor that neither the client nor the estate agent had mentioned the fact that the building was listed.
During the surveyor’s inspection a number of alterations were noted and photographed, and it later became apparent that these had not received listed building consent. One alteration in particular—the removal of the chimney stack above roof level—had been made despite the fact that an application for listed building consent for that work had been refused in 1987.
The instruction
The research
Photo1: Tile hung over timber frame west elevation.
Although slightly concerned that he had not been alerted to the situation, the fact that the property was Grade II listed was not, in itself, a discouragement to the client buying the property.
The listing The building in which Flat 3 was situated had been listed for its special architectural or historic interest in 1972, at a time when many new listings were taking place. Grade II listing is given to buildings that are of special interest, warranting every effort to preserve them. Photo 2: Brick and stone north elevation.
Photo 3: Flat 3 southerly elevation.
The listing in question stated: “Probably C18 altered, 3-storey, stucco, lined and painted, 3-sash windows at upper floors with glazing bars, early or mid C19 wood shop front with scroll consoles to pilasters. 6-panel door left. Return south shows narrow coursed stonework. Nos xx to xx, No xx and The Shambles form a group.” This description of the building is typically brief; it does not define the full extent of what is considered significant about the building and does little more than enable the correct identification of the building.
(Continued on page 8) Page 7 of 10
SAVA Technical Bulletin Issue 16 | June 20 13 | ©Nation al Energy Services (Continued from page 7) These descriptions were commonly written by surveyors employed for this task from a brief visual inspection of the exterior of the property; often an interior inspection was not carried out. The quotation refers to features found mainly on the front façade of the building and herein lies a popular misconception, namely that it is assumed that only the front of the building is listed. In fact, Listed Building Consent is required for any works, external or internal, that may affect the character of a building. Listed Building Consent may also be required if someone proposes to undertake works to any building or structure that falls within the curtilage of the main listed building. The listing of a building affects its whole structure, i.e. every part of the building, even later additions or alterations can contribute towards its architectural or historic character and it is a criminal offence to undertake works to a listed building without formal authorisation. In the case of Flat 3, there are, in addition to the residential parts of the building, several outbuildings in a dangerously derelict state of repair and these are also listed buildings.
The inspection The inspection of the property revealed a number of defects including rotten timbers, damaged wall claddings, blocked and inaccessible drains, excessively springy floors, defective rainwater goods, dampness affecting the chimney breast and possible asbestos containing roof and wall tiles. It also quickly became clear that Flat 3 had been altered over the years. This is not unusual, of course, in a property that is several hundred years old, but in this case the range of alterations did not appear to have been the kind of measures that would have been approved by a conservation officer. The general condition of the property also suggested that neglect had taken a serious toll on some of the valuable features of the property, including the Georgian and Victorian sashes and the structural timbers.
There were a number of alterations which were noted and which probably had not receive any consent: A roof covering has been replaced (perhaps within the last 10 years) with modern slate-effect tiles. Beneath the covering was a Tyvek breathable sarking membrane. The covering probably replaced asbestos cement slates which could still be seen on the southerly pitch. A traditional sash window had been replaced with a modern, single glazed window (date unknown). Some of the wall cladding had been replaced with modern cladding. Some traditional reed lathe and plaster remained, but much had been removed and replaced with a gypsum plaster board. Modern alterations had been made in an attempt to prepare the property for sale. A new kitchen, numerous fitted cupboards and wardrobes, and a new bathroom had been installed; some work had not yet been completed. However, one particular alteration was worth more detailed consideration. The chimney stack had been crudely lowered below the roof line (see Photo 4) and a new roof covering extended above it. The surveyor was unable to access the ground floor commercial premises to check the condition of any remaining fireplaces but, had there been one, any flue gases from it would have exhausted into the roof space.
All fireplaces in Flat 3 had been covered over with plaster. Interestingly, in photo 4, the black pipe in the foreground was the kitchen extractor vent pipe which was not connected; therefore moist air from above the cooker was expelled to the roof void beside the remaining chimney stack. The stack was very wet and saltladen and there was no designed ventilation to the roof void other than a breathable sarking membrane to the northerly pitch. There was evidence of condensation stains to the timbers and some softening of the wood in places. Although the surveyor did not know it at the time of his inspection, it later emerged that listed building consent had been applied for (and turned down) for this alteration in 1987. The surveyor made this discovery during another phone call to the council, postinspection. Initially, he had wondered if the original application had been retrospective; however, on visiting the council offices to view the file, the photos submitted as part of the application clearly showed a large stack with at least four pots (see Photos 5 & 6 over the page). Therefore it would seem that someone had removed the top of the stack at some point between 1987 and the present day.
(Continued on page 9)
Photo 4: Shows the chimney stack inside the roof space showing extractor vent pipe.
Page 8 of 10
SAVA Technical Bulletin Issue 16 | June 20 13 | ©Nation al Energy Services However, had the conservation officer suggested that the chimney stack be replaced (and photographic evidence exists to show what it had looked like), then the cost of doing that work could be factored in to subsequent negotiations for the purchase or alternatively, the client could withdraw at that point.
The Outcome Photo 6: 1987 and the chimney stack is still in place.
(Continued from page 8)
Informing the Client and Assessing His Options In his report, the surveyor advised the client of his concerns, i.e., that some works may not have had approval. The surveyor also agreed to meet the client to discuss the issues. Verbally, the surveyor informed him that this could mean that whoever was the current owner was liable for any reparation work, if the local authority were to go as far as issuing an enforcement notice obliging him, as the new owner, to replace the missing stack and other items. The report and the surveyor’s verbal advice also warned of the additional cost of works to listed buildings and that a new owner would have extra liabilities for maintenance over and above those of a non-listed property. The report also included advice that the client’s legal advisor should explain the full extent of legal liability to him. The options open to the client, as discussed, were as follows: Proceed to purchase the property regardless of the issues with it. This option would have entailed considerable risk and any competent surveyor would advise against such a course. The client would be buying a property without being aware of the extent of works that might be required to rectify defects and possibly to put right unauthorised alterations. The client had been hoping to buy one of the lowest priced properties in the area and would have faced future cost uncertainty instead.
Photo 7: 2012 no chimney.
Withdraw from the purchase completely. This option would mean losing money spent so far on the purchase but would limit further expense. The client could buy another property, probably one that offered much less risk, albeit at a higher price. Investigate remedying any problems prior to exchange of contracts. This option would not have been without risk as further expense would undoubtedly have been incurred, but the result could be the successful purchase of the desired property with clarity of future costs of any repair and re-instatement. Much of this investigation would be handled by the solicitor.
The proposed solution The surveyor favoured the third option, i.e., to consult a conservation officer from the local council before proceeding further. A simple meeting with the local authority might have returned some confidence to the proceedings. By being entirely open about the alterations to the property, an assessment by the conservation officer might have waylaid the client’s fears of high repair or replacement costs. In the light of a favourable outcome to that meeting, then further investigation of the condition of the timber framed walls, where concealed by cladding, and the roof space could be undertaken. Subject to those investigations yielding a satisfactory result, the client would probably be better informed and feel more confident about exchanging contracts.
Unfortunately, the client chose to withdraw from the purchase following the survey and having taken advice from his solicitor. The survey highlighted alterations, which were not approved by the local authority, so potentially he as the buyer would be liable for an as yet unknown number of reparations. It is understandable that an average buyer might be deterred by such a discovery. Making unapproved alterations to a listed property is a criminal offence and making them despite having an LBC application turned down is clearly not a good idea, if that is indeed what had occurred. The Historical Buildings Prosecution Fines National Database lists several relevant cases involving removal of chimney stacks: 1. 1994, a developer was fined £10,000 plus £1750 costs for removal of a chimney stack (and some other unapproved work) Kennet DC. 2. 2001, Queen Ethelburga’s School was fined £6000 plus £30,000 costs (Harrogate BC) for removing a chimney stack.
(Continued on page 10)
Page 9 of 10
SAVA Technical Bulletin Issue 16 | June 2013 | © National Energy Services (Continued from page 9) These cases may be extreme, but in law no real differentiation in severity is made between Grade I, Grade II or Grade II*. Although not sharing the criminal liability of the previous owner whose alterations contravene criminal law. The surveyor’s client would nonetheless have inherited a potential liability to make good any unapproved alterations. It may be that a conservation officer would deem that the alterations had little bearing on what originally made the building significant, but the client did not know that.
The surveyor was able to do so as he had ascertained his client needs. And by carrying out desk top research before the inspection and then verifying his findings through further research, the surveyor was able to provide best advice. The fact that time was of the essence was not in this case a barrier to providing that best advice. Again, this is a fact that should always be in our minds when we are asked to deliver a quick result—we need reflective thought and we need to put the brakes on if something is not sufficiently clear.
The surveyor fulfilled his professional responsibilities as a residential surveyor. He provided the client with an independent report that informed his decision and made him fully aware of the extent of the illegal alterations.
Send your feedback to bulletins@nesltd.co.uk; back copies of all bulletins and an Index are available in the NES one Useful Documents section. Registration Services: 01908 442 277 registration@nesltd.co.uk Compliance: 01908 442288 compliance@nesltd.co.uk SAVA, The National Energy Centre Davy Avenue, Milton Keynes, MK5 8NA Web: www.nesltd.co.uk
Technical Support Helpdesk: 01908 442105 support@nesltd.co.uk Training enquiries: 01908 442254 training@nesltd.co.uk NES one Credit Top up line: 01908 442299
The content of this technical bulletin is protected by copyright and any unauthorised use, copying, lending or making available of it, howsoever defined, which is not specifically authorised by National Energy Services Ltd., is strictly prohibited. © 2013 National Energy Services
Page 10 of 10