SAVA Technical Bulletin
For registered members of the SAVA Scheme
Issue 19 | April 2015 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
Changes to the Home Condition Survey Working with the RSPA Japanese Knotweed Transparency of Mortgage Fees How Insurers Assess a Claim Embracing Technology–Surveying in the 21st Century
Changes to the Home Condition Survey
We are pleased to announce the release of the HCS v3 software incorporating some major changes and bug fixes. The main features of version 3 are:
The new look HCS We have changed the look of the final version of the HCS to bring it in line with the consumer facing website launched last year at: www.myhomeconditionsurvey.co.uk. When we launched this site we took advice from a design consultancy to make the product engaging and modern, professional but also accessible for the reader.
This new design has been created very much with the consumer (your clients) in mind. The new green colour and graphics were chosen because research suggests they convey the appropriate ‘friendly yet professional’ image. We know this new look might take some getting used to, but we hope you will soon come to love it as much as we do. The most important question to consider is—will your customers like it?
Property photograph on the cover page of the report Many surveyors have requested that a photograph of the customer’s property is present on the cover page of the report. A space for this has now been included.
Photographs all through the report– including section C You will now have the option to upload a photograph where you think an image will help explain the issue. You will need to properly ‘describe’ the photograph and will be able to choose where to upload it from a drop down menu.
Improved picture uploads Enhanced photographic orientation detection ensures that your photos will be uploaded displaying the correct orientation, i.e. landscape or portrait.
Auto saving feature Reports will now save every two minutes, not simply when you move from page to page. This fix addresses an issue many of you have had with regards to losing text when the software timed out. We understand it is important to know that your work is safe should you move away from your desk for any reason—this fix should offer reassurance.
Fact sheets The order in which these appear in the document can now be selected simply by the order in which they are ticked from the drop down menu.
Page 1 of 12
Issue 19 | April 2015
Working with the RPSA Many SAVA Scheme members are already members of the Residential Property Surveyors Association. For those who are not, it is definitely worth considering joining. RPSA works hard on behalf of its members—raising their profile, raising the profile of the HCS and raising the profile of surveying in general for the home buying public. They liaise with other professional bodies, other trade bodies and commercial organisations. They are very successful with this and Alan Milstein, the Chairman of RPSA, is on the Valuation Commission Cross Sector Group, and another member, Tim Kenny has recently had great success with the government’s Money Advice Service (MAS). It was recently reported to RPSA that MAS had misleading information on its house buyers guide to surveys, and had neglected to mention anything other than the RICS offerings, which were also incorrectly named and described. RPSA Council member, Tim Kenny, took up the challenge to ensure
that RPSA and the HCS were included in the information given. Tim provided an alternative text suggestion to MAS giving a more balanced, informative and correct description of survey options and surveyors' professional associations. You can see the approved wording on the MAS web page at www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/a-guide-tohomebuyer-surveys-and-costs We are pleased to see that RPSA and the HCS get an equal standing to the RICS products and MAS acknowledges that RPSA is a credible and legitimate professional surveyors association. This is good news for all SAVA Scheme members who might find this website a useful pointer for any of their potential clients unsure about the HCS and the professionalism of SAVA accredited surveyors.
Page 2 of 12
Issue 19 | April 2015
Japanese Knotweed these biological control species did not exist and, with no natural predators, the plant is able to thrive uncontrolled.
The problem Once it takes hold, Japanese Knotweed grows at a very rapid rate. It is not fussy and can grow in any type of soil. We last covered the topic of Japanese Knotweed in Issue 14 of the SAVA Technical Bulletin, July 2012. However, we feel that this topic warrants additional discussions as this pernicious plant is costing us, our insurers and some SAVA surveyors money. Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia Japonica) is a perennial and, on the face of it, an elegant and attractive bamboo like plant. However in the past few years it has become recognised as one of the most anti-social and talked about plants in Britain and was described by the Environment Agency as "indisputably the UK's most aggressive, destructive and invasive plant". It has a very invasive root structure and the strength and speed of its growth means it can damage buildings, roads, flood defences, drains and other buried services and smother other plants. This led to it being included in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which makes it an offence to plant or otherwise allow Japanese Knotweed to grow in the wild.
Above ground it can grow to 3-4m high in just 10 weeks in dense stands, while underground, the plant has an aggressive root system with interlinking rhizomes (used to store food) that grow rapidly. These can spread up to 7m horizontally and the energy and force of this rapid growth can break through solid barriers compromising the physical integrity of structures such as: Drains and other buried services Paths, patios, drives etc Boundary and retaining walls Outbuildings and conservatories Gardens Although rare, it has been known to break through the floor screeds into actual properties. We have seen pictures where the plant has come up through a floor slab into a living room. Luckily, such extreme cases are very rare.
A brief history Japanese Knotweed was introduced into Europe in the early 19th century and propagated and sold as an ornamental garden plant because it grew quickly and because in its native Japan the plant is well behaved. However, the Victorian gardeners quickly recognised that it could cause some problems and the Royal Horticultural Society advised caution on using it in the early part of the 20thCentury, but it was not until sometime later that it was identified as having a destructive quality to structures and other plants. In Japan its proliferation is kept in check by natural means as there are at least 30 species of insect and 6 species of fungus that feed on the plant. It only became a nuisance when it was removed from its natural habitat where
The main way in which it spreads is by human activity—essentially any part of the plant can, if broken off, grow into a new plant. The most common way is for rhizomes to be broken off and spread onto new areas simply through careless management of the waste. In particular, it has been associated with water courses (streams, rivers, canals etc.) where the water has inadvertently carried plant waste to a new site.
Once established the eradication of the plant can be problematic and expensive. Digging it out can work but due to the depth and spread of the rhizomes regrowth often occurs, while chemical treatments can take upwards of three or four seasons before total eradication is achieved. Additionally, the disposal of what is now deemed as ‘controlled waste’ needs to be carried out under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and this essentially means a specialist contractor should be appointed.
The Law Japanese Knotweed is already covered in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. However, in 2014 an amendment to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act included Japanese Knotweed and other non native plant species, the other notable plant being Giant Hog Weed which can have a detrimental effect on human health. The reason stated by the Home Office is that they “…threaten our native biodiversity by crowding out native species and destabilising river banks. They can also damage forestry, agriculture and infrastructure sectors.” The new powers can be used in two ways: A community protection notice can be used to require a person or a ‘body’ to control or prevent the growth of Japanese Knotweed. Local councils and the police will have the power to issue notices where the conduct of the individual or body is having a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality. Conduct includes ‘failure to act’. Breach of a community protection notice is a criminal act and an individual or organisation would be liable to a fine.
(Continued on page 4)
Page 3 of 12
Issue 19 | April 2015 The property was in an area known to be affected by Japanese Knotweed and the purchasers specifically asked the surveyor to look out for the plant.
(Continued from page 3) A community trigger is activated by an individual or an organisation (or someone acting on their behalf) to require agencies to deal with a persistent or previously ignored antisocial behaviour problem. The Home Office confirms in its advice note that this can include Japanese Knotweed.
In summary It is not illegal to have the plant in a garden, but the home owner should aim to control the plant and prevent it become a nuisance to neighbours etc. Control can be carried out by the home owner, but only a specialist company can dispose of the plant or soil which might contain traces of the plant.
Identification Japanese Knotweed is an herbaceous perennial, i.e. the stems of the plant die down to soil level each winter but some parts of the plant are sustained just below or at surface level and re-growth can occur for an indefinite number of years.
Unlike many other plants in the UK, it does not produce viable seeds–as there is no male Japanese Knotweed partner and instead, it spreads through the root system or via stem cuttings, as mentioned above. The plant is bamboo like in structure with shield shaped leaves. These leaves are arranged in a zigzag pattern along the stem and in late summer they will be accompanied by creamy coloured flower tassels. The stem can vary (depending on the time of the season) from being speckled to a pinkish/red hollow stem, then finally long bare stems in the winter months.
Implications for property–insurance and lending As well as the potential damage and general hassle that Japanese Knotweed can cause, there are a number of other implications for home owners: Many home owners may not be covered for any damage caused by or t h e re mo va l of J apa n e s e Knotweed, as many building insurance policies do not cover these. This may get expensive a chemical control can cost several thousand pounds. When Japanese Knotweed originates from a neighbouring property an insurance company may pursue the owner of that property for the costs of the damage or removal. Therefore, a homeowner may find themselves liable for the costs of knotweed damage/removal on a neighbouring property. Many mortgage lenders will not grant mortgages on properties affected by Japanese Knotweed which can have obvious implications for owners hoping to sell their property. Some lenders will not lend on property where Knotweed is identified within 7m of the subject property boundary. This is because the Environment Agency has deemed that the rhizomes can extend up to 7m horizontally and 3m vertically. Because of the issues outlined, Japanese Knotweed can pose a real ‘threat’ to the property being surveyed.
The surveyor undertook the inspection, including the rear garden. He took a few general photographs of the garden, but there was no reference in his site notes or the photographs of him looking over any garden fences into neighbouring properties or indeed any accurate location of the photographs. We and the claims investigators had to piece this together. The photographs he did take indicate that it would have been possible for him to look over the right hand fence and the rear fence would have been possible as they were accessible and low enough for him to be able to peered over them. A raised flower bed along part of the left hand fence restricted access to the fence and visibility of the neighbours’ garden on that side. It was not possible to determine from the photographs if this raised bed ran the full length of the garden or was only present along part of that boundary. Immediately over the accessible fence on the right hand side of the garden there was a stand of mixed shrubs. There was a photo taken of the back of the property titled ‘Rear Elevation’ and this stand of shrubs was clearly visible in that photograph. The leaves on one of the plants in the stand was clearly of a heart or shield shape, but it was not possible from the photograph to determine exactly what species of plant were included in the mix of plants. The surveyor’s clients moved into the property and some months later lodged a claim against the surveyor because they found Japanese Knotweed in their garden. (Continued on page 5)
A recent claim relating to Japanese Knotweed Recently we had a successful claim against a member of the SAVA Scheme. The surveyor in question was asked by his clients to inspect a property for the purposes of providing a Home Condition Survey.
Page 4 of 12
Issue 19 | April 2015 Revision to the Scheme Rules
(Continued from page 4)
When carrying out the inspection the surveyor must have consideration to any risks to the property that could originate from outside the boundaries of the subject property. Surveyors must be able to identify Japanese Knotweed at all times of year and must report to their client that they have identified Japanese Knotweed when:
They lodged the claim against the surveyor on the basis that he had missed the Japanese Knotweed present in the adjacent garden. The claim was actually lodged in court so the insurer instructed a solicitor. However, in order to avoid additional costs we agreed with the insurers and the solicitor that we should settle the claim prior to the hearing date. We did so because, based on the photos taken on the day of the inspection, it would have been impossible to dispute the presence of Japanese Knotweed immediately over the fence in the neighbours garden. The photograph taken of the back of the property titled ‘Rear Elevation’ clearly showed some vegetation in the neighbouring garden on the right hand side of the photograph. From the photograph it as difficult to tell whether or not this was Japanese Knotweed and, when enlarged, the photo became too blurred to tell. However, the leaf shape could have been Japanese Knotweed and some of the stems seemed to have had a pinkish tinge. We reluctantly had to agree with the solicitor that based on this photograph the claimant could rely on making the claim difficult to challenge. This case reinforces a very important point: most successful claims against surveyors are successful not because the surveyor was negligent, but because they were unable to prove that they were not.
Japanese Knotweed and the SAVA Home Condition Survey In the light of the successful claim against one of our surveyors and the recent changes in the law we have reviewed the product rules and the HCS with regards to inspecting for and the reporting on Japanese Knotweed. On reflection, we accept that up to now the product rules have not been completely transparent for the surveyor and that there has not been anywhere to report the presence of the weed, other than in Section G where no condition rating is attributed.
Also, RICS produced a Japanese Knotweed information Paper in 2012 which categorises the risks associated with by Japanese Knotweed into four degrees of severity. The intention is that mortgage lenders can make an accurate and reliable decision on how much finance is offered on properties that have a Japanese Knotweed problem. In practice, the way that individual lenders react to the risks associated with the plant will vary from lender to lender, but the risk categories still provide a useful framework for surveyors. The four RICS risk categories of severity are listed in the table and further elaborated on in the diagrams on page 6. RICS suggests that for Categories 3 or 4 a Japanese Knotweed survey is required. For any Japanese Knotweed issues that fall between categories 1-2 the decision to take professional action should be based on a combination of the valuer's professional judgement and the cl i en t's par ti c ula r requ ire m en t s . Therefore, we have introduced an additional reporting requirement.
Reporting on Japanese Knotweed A new box has been introduced in Section C4 of the HCS report (under Contamination, flooding, etc.), headed Trees and Vegetation. The surveyor will use this section to report on the presence of Japanese Knotweed. The surveyor must also mention Japanese Knotweed in Section G.
It is within the boundary of the subject property irrespective of how far it is from any buildings or structures; It is visible on any neighbouring properties within 7m of the boundary of the subject property. For t he av oidan ce of doubt a neighbouring property can be any property within 7 meters of the boundary of the subject property and is not restricted to that immediately adjacent property. When recording the presence or other wise of Japanese Knotweed, the site notes and photographs together should evidence: Locations from which the surveyor did a visual inspection of any neighbouring property (note that neighbouring property should only be inspected from within the subject property or from publicly accessible land); Any limitations that prevented a visual inspection (e.g. high fences, thick shrubs and planting preventing access to the property boundary, etc.); Any plants that could be mistaken for Japanese Knotweed but are not. Note that this is very important in light of the case referred to above. When describing Knotweed in Section G, the RICS risk categories will provide a useful framework in order to provide information for the client, particularly when calling on ‘Further Investigation’.
(Continues on page 6)
Page 5 of 12
Issue 19 | April 2015
RICS Japanese Knotweed Risks Categories
1
There is no Japanese Knotweed on the property but it has been found on a neighbouring building or land but it is more than 7 metres away from the boundary of the subject property.
2
Japanese Knotweed has not been found within the boundaries of the subject property but it is present on a neighbouring property within 7 metres of the boundary but more than 7 metres from the habitable spaces, conservatory and/or garage of the property.
3
Japanese Knotweed has been spotted within the boundaries of the property but it is more than 7 metres from the habitable space, conservatory and/or garage. Any damage to outbuildings, paths and fences is only minor.
4
Japanese knotweed has been spotted within 7 metres of a habitable space, conservatory and/or garage at the property. This could be either within the boundaries of a property or in a neighbouring property and/or Japanese Knotweed is causing serious damage to outbuildings, associated structures, drains, paths, boundary walls and fences etc.
Page 6 of 12
Issue 19 | April 2015
How Insurers Assess a Claim The SAVA scheme has received a number of successful claims against our surveyors lately and has been working closely with the claims investigators and their legal advisers to investigate any potential claims. It seemed sensible to report on how the insurers look at a claim. When the insurers examine a claim they look at the potential legal liability of the individual insured by assessing how the courts would be likely to view the matter, if the claim would eventually reach the courts. Although it may not seem so for some of the surveyors who have recently had to pay the excess on a successful claim, the insurers do not settle without a thorough investigation first and, through the claims investigation team at the SAVA scheme, will call in all the relevant documentation to support a refute of the claim. This is where the surveyor comes in. The insurer’s every instinct is not to pay out for a claim, but if the surveyor has produced such poor site notes or the photographs are insufficient or not annotated, the insurer will indemnify the claimant. The rule applied is “would the defence of the claim be successful”. When a claim is made that is likely to go to court, the insurer will form a defence team which comprises the insurer’s own claims manager, their own solicitor and a SAVA representative. The defence team will build the defence case with the help of the surveyor. The insurer always consults with SAVA and, if we are all in agreement that the chances of success in court are slim, the defence team will normally agree that the most cost effective way to proceed will be to offer to settle the matter with the claimant (with reductions to the amount claimed when appropriate).
The claim was based on the failure to identify this hazard, thereby depriving the claimant of the opportunity to negotiate with the previous owner a discount on the price of the house.
In civil courts the rulings are made on whether, on the balance of probability, the surveyor is at fault. In the case reported in this bulletin relating to the Japanese Knotweed (page 4 of this bulletin), the insurer, together with their solicitor and SAVA, assessed the matter very carefully. They made the decision to settle based on the following facts: That there was a plant clearly visible in one of the photographs taken by the surveyor at the time of the inspection that could very feasibly be Japanese Knotweed; That none of us could say that the plant in question was not Japanese Knotweed (the quality of the photograph was not good enough to rule it out); That none of us could say that a plant expert would be able to determine any differently (again based on the quality of the photograph and the lack of any other photographs); That on the balance of probability the court would have found the surveyor to be at fault, because the photograph clearly illustrated that there was a plant in the neighbouring garden that looked like it could have been Japanese Knotweed–in effect coming to the decision that the Japanese Knotweed was in the neighbour’s garden at the time of the inspection;
The insurers settled the claim before it actually went to court. This is done as to significantly reduce the cost of the defending the claim, and to bring the matter to a swift close. The defence team agreed that this was the best outcome that could have been obtained under the circumstances. In this particular claim the insurers settled the claim without any admission of liability, evidenced by the communication heading stating that the offer is without prejudice save as to costs. They did not make any comments on liability. This is the customary approach for these kinds of settlement. If the matter had actually proceeded to the courts and been presented, the defence team were all of the opinion that the surveyor would have been found to be negligent and a judgment would have been issued by the courts and the surveyor would have been found to be liable. There is a significant learning point about this case. The surveyor in question was a very experienced surveyor and we are confident that he can corr e ct ly id en tif y Japan es e Knotweed and that it probably was not present in the neighbouring garden at the time of the inspection. However, and this is the really important point, because of the lack of detail in his site notes and photographs (and in particular the lack of a detailed photograph to prove that the suspect plant was not Japanese Knotweed) neither the surveyor nor the defence team were able to prove that it was not.
That the surveyor could not provide any evidence to prove that it was not Japanese Knotweed (although he maintained that it was not).
Page 7 of 12
Issue 19 | April 2015
Embracing Technology—Surveying in the 21st Century Over the last few years we have seen the introduction of many new technologies that could, on the face of it, make the surveyors’ life easier and enable them to give a better service to their client. In this article we look at some of the new innovations and evaluate their possible use for residential surveying.
Drones A drone (unmanned aerial vehicle) with a remote controlled camera attached allows surveyors to see hard to reach places without the use of scaffolding or cherry pickers etc. Bonningtons Chartered Surveyors from Yorkshire use a drone to inspect very tall buildings. Their website says: “We also offer a unique cost effective method of inspecting very tall buildings as an initial planning tool for Clients without the need for expensive scaffold, hydraulic platforms, or other traditional methods of inspection. Using our remote controlled quadcopter–to which a 12mp stills camera provides crisp images, a Panasonic 1920x1080p @ 50fps camcorder provides HD quality images, and other equipment and cameras that can be agreed with the Client can be attached–we can provide properly planned solutions very competitively.“ As reported in the March edition of Modus, the RICS magazine, property and construction consultancy Tuffin Ferraby and Taylor used a drone to determine the condition and maintenance requirements of the Guildhall and Theatre Royal, Windsor buildings with unique access issues.
The flight must not endanger anyone or anything; The aircraft must be kept within the visual line of sight (normally taken to be within 500 m horizontally and 400 ft vertically) of its remote pilot. Flights beyond these distances must be approved by the CAA; Drones u se d for surveil lanc e purposes are subject to tighter restrictions with regard to the minimum distances that you can fly near people or properties that are not under your control; Drones should not be flown over or within 150m of a congested area.
4k cameras differ from ordinary cameras only by how much detail can be captured and therefore displayed. The human eye has a resolution of 576 mega (million) pixels, therefore the more pixels a camera can capture the more realistic the image will look. Search for 4k cameras on the internet can cause confusion as currently their main commercial use is for movies because TVs are not able to display the images to the same level of quality. If you display 4K on a HD TV you will only get HD quality and so the 4000 pixels wide detail gets toned down to 1080 pixels wide.
There are other limitations on the use of drones. Tuffin Ferraby and Taylor, in particular, reported that because the work they were doing was so close to Windsor Castle they also had to pay particular attention to security concerns. Drones clearly have a role to play for the inspection and assessment of ‘hard to access’ roof surfaces etc. and on historic or particularly tall or inaccessible buildings are probably essential. However, all of these issues suggest that the use of drones for regular domestic inspection work may not be practical. We would love to hear if any residential surveyor has been using drones successfully.
4K cameras and poles 4K refers to the horizontal resolution size used by 4k recording equipment and 4k displays. Measured in pixels, it represents how much detail can be captured or displayed, in this case 4000 pixels wide. It is around four times the size of standard HD which is 1080 pixels; the diagram below illustrate this.
4k Video cameras start at about £1000 plus, but there has been a growing sports market for 4K cameras. Consequently much cheaper versions are now available through companies such as GoPro.
Len Cannon writes: We first adopted the use of pole cameras two years ago to assist with all of our activities but it has been invaluable for providing insurers with the quality of evidence they are looking for. Another benefit has been the ability to show homeowners the video so they can see for themselves what problems need addressing.
(Continued on page 9)
Both firms have reported several issues that they needed to consider when using drones. In particular the following rules apply: In the UK you need permission to fly commercially, i.e. if you are receiving a fee from the operation of the aircraft; additionally, the pilot of the drone also needs to be licensed by the CAA and insured. Page 8 of 12
Issue 19 | April 2015 (Continued from page 8)
Today’s concession—tomorrow’s right
We use the pole cameras to ascertain three scenarios to:
Once we started using pole cameras there was no going back which is just as well as all our trade clients now expect the use of pole cameras as standard.”
Identify defects; Verify what repairs have been undertaken (and the quality of works); Eliminate potential issues.
Image taken with conventional camera from the ground.
Image taken with conventional camera zoomed-in.
Equipment There is a wide range of roof inspection solutions and therefore individuals must satisfy their own requirements. Increasingly, smart phones have the ability to remotely operate and view images from digital cameras but you do need to make sure they can cope with the distance between the two devices. Poles come in a variety of lengths. We invested in an 8m pole and this length of pole has been sufficient for most scenarios. We would certainly not use a shorter pole. However, on reflection, we now consider that a 10m pole would be better.
Image taken with conventional camera mounted on a pole.
We did a lot of research on the camera and eventually opted for a high definition 4Km which is mounted on the end of the pole. The camera we use was developed with action sports in mind (the sort of camera that mountain bikers attach to their helmets. You can see examples of cameras in use on You Tube). We bought the complete kit a couple of years ago and the camera and 8m pole cost us around £300 plus vat. This configuration does not give remote viewing, unlike say a canon sure shot, and we cannot see what we are photographing as we take the photograph or video. However with a bit of practice we found that we pretty soon were able to ‘hit the spot’. Most importantly for us, the image quality is excellent, it is all contained within a small unit that charges and records video and plays back via USB lead to a laptop. The unit takes video footage which can then be paused and stills can be taken from the video to include in the report.
Birds eye view, notice the ridge tiles to the right
Len Cannon qualified as a Home Inspector in 2007 and has run his own surveying business ever since. His activities are split between building insurance validations on behalf of insurers, Home Condition Surveys for buyers and also commercial EPCs.
(Continued on page 10) Page 9 of 12
Issue 19 | April 2015 (Continued on page 10)
Thermal imaging At the recent BlueBox partners' road shows, Stuart Holland from Thermographic Consultancy Ltd gave a lively presentation outlining how thermal imaging cameras could be used by residential surveyors. Ranging from identifying cold spots and potential condensation problems through to assessing whether a flooded property has dried out, Stuart explained how thermal imaging cameras can enhance the service residential surveyor could provide. To consider this in more detail, Phil Parnham of BlueBox partners invited Stuart to Sheffield to take a number of thermal images of his house.
The results were startling and confusing at the same time. For example, the image was taken late morning and the wall had been warmed by early spring sunshine for several hours. This reversed the usual interpretation of thermal images: the red areas were the warmest because the cavity wall insulation prevented the inward dissipation of heat. The cavity wall insulation is at its most effective in these areas. The yellow and green areas are those parts where the heat has flowed to the internal spaces suggesting the cavity insulation is poor or even absent.
Phil Parnham writes My house was built in 1913. It has a brick and brick cavity wall, its wall ties were replaced in the mid 1980s and the cavities insulated in 1988 (now out of its guarantee). Due to the poor condition of the mortar joints, driving rain had crossed the cavity affecting the plastered surface internally. I subsequently had the wall re-pointed, and this resolved the worst of the problem. However, I wanted to know whether the cavity wall insulation had slumped as a consequence of getting wet and what better way to do this than a thermal imaging camera.
This is the complete reverse of what would be revealed by inside to outside heat flow and shows the importance of proper analysis. It is not enough to own a camera you must know how to use.
Phil Parnham MRICS is a Chartered Building Surveyor and technical author based in Sheffield. He is a director of BlueBox partners and delivers the Construction and Building Pathology elements of the Diploma in Residential Surveying and Valuation.
Page 10 of 12
Issue 19 | April 2015
Transparency of Mortgage Fees The key proposals are: Introducing a common approach by lenders to make their ‘tariff’ of fees and charges available to customers to avoid confusion and make it easier to find information about mortgage costs;
On 18 March 2015 The Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) and Which? published a joint progress report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—available via this web link: www.cml.org.uk/cml/filegrab/.pdf?ref=9295%20 The report comes approximately half way through a joint project called Mortgage Fees and Charges Transparency Review which is intended to last for 6 months. In this interim report the CML and Which? told the chancellor that there had been good lender engagement, that they have made good progress and that most of the industry will have made the necessary changes by the end of the year. In July of this year CML and Which? will publish their firm proposals and a timeline for their implementation. So what exactly is this project all about? Fundamentally it is to improve the information given to consumers making it easier for them to understand mortgage fees and charges and to compare the overall costs of borrowing. It is considering practical solutions for the following: Transparency of fees and charges to help improve consumer outcomes; Standardisation of terminology around fees and charges;
Wider use of consistent terms to describe the same types of fees and charges that currently have an array of different names; Better explanations of whether fees are compulsory or avoidable and when they will be charged; Clearer ways of presenting information to help borrowers compare the cost of particular mortgage deals over specific periods, not just the upfront costs. This is encouraging news for surveyors who have to battle with the variable terminology around surveys and valuations and for consumers who have, in many cases, been mis-sold a valuation, thinking it was a survey that would tell them about the condition of their property.
Members of the Council of Mortgage Lenders are banks, building societies and other lenders who together undertake around 95% of all residential mortgage lending in the UK. There are 11.1 million mortgages in the UK, with loans worth over £1.3 trillion.
Consumer educations; Setting administrative charges so that they reflect the cost to the lender. The progress report outlines the key proposals, which focus on the changes needed to inform customers and help them to understand a complicated financial product. The interim report specifically refers to valuation fees, pointing out that there are several different terms for exactly the same service across the industry.
Page 11 of 12
Issue 19 | April 2015
Home Inspector to AssocRICS: Laying the Foundations The tailored entry route, Option C, developed specifically for practising Home Inspectors to enrol onto the Diploma in Residential Surveying and Valuation, is only available if you have lodged three or more Home Condition Surveys in the past six months. However, if you are a Home Inspector but have not been practising, we have a solution.
Home Inspector to AssocRICS: Laying the Foundations Attend this three day training package and you will gain the skills and confidence to grow your business, revive your surveying techniques and be given the opportunity to complete two of the three Home Condition Surveys needed to become eligible for the tailored Home Inspector entry route onto the Diploma in Residential Surveying and Valuation.
Day 3—Home Condition Survey—Accompanied Inspection: Two on-site assessments to be carried out under exam conditions This course gives non-practising Home Inspectors the means to enrol on the Dip R Surv & Val qualification at a reduced rate of £5,940—a saving of £5,160 over the price offered to DEAs of £11,100 (subject to the lodgement of three Home Condition Surveys). This entry route will only be available until the September 2015 course intake, before it is removed by ABBE, the awarding body.
Day 1—How to Sell the Home Condition Survey: Goal setting and management Understanding the product and target audience Top tips on how to build a successful marketing campaign Advice on networking Day 2—Home Condition Survey Masterclass: Practical visit to our training property An overview of inspection and recording methods Report writing and discussion, including applying condition ratings
About our bulletins We trust you find this edition of the SAVA technical bulletin useful. If there are any areas you would like to see covered in future editions drop us a line at bulletins@nesltd.co.uk. All editions of the bulletins and an index are available in the Useful Documents section of NES one. Technical Support: 01908 442105 (8am–7pm Monday-Thursday, 8am-5pm Friday, 10am-4pm Saturday); support@nesltd.co.uk Support Website: support.nesltd.co.uk Membership Services: 01908 442277 (9am–5.30pm Monday -Thursday, 9am-5pm Friday); membership@nesltd.co.uk Compliance: 01908 442288 (8am–7pm Monday-Thursday, 8am-5pm Friday); compliance@nesltd.co.uk Training enquiries: 01908 442240 or email assessment@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. © 2015 National Energy Services
SAVA, The National Energy Centre Davy Avenue, Milton Keynes, MK5 8NA Web: www.nesltd.co.uk
Page 12 of 12