Justin Smith   10 #13 Posted April 3, 2016 Aha- so it was a mortgage valuation, not a survey at all.  A mortgage valuation is a survey, surely ? But whatever definition of survey (or mortgage report) you want to use, it`s patently unreasonable to force buyers to pay £240 for a tree report "on the off chance". Incidentally, are you saying the person who undertook the survey / mortgage valuation wasn`t a surveyor ? If not what was he ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jeffrey Shaw   83 #14 Posted April 5, 2016 A mortgage valuation is a survey, surely? No. In effect, there are three types of inspection: 1. Mortgage valuation, for the mortgagee's benefit (albeit paid-for by the mortgagor [borrower]). 2. Homebuyer Report. Sufficient for most residential property purchases. 3. Full Structural Survey. Very detailed, but very expensive too.  But whatever definition of survey (or mortgage report) you want to use, it`s patently unreasonable to force buyers to pay £240 for a tree report "on the off chance". Incidentally, are you saying the person who undertook the survey / mortgage valuation wasn`t a surveyor ? If not what was he ? Irrelevant question. One need not be a Chartered Surveyor to carry-out any of those three. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Justin Smith   10 #15 Posted April 6, 2016 (edited) No. In effect, there are three types of inspection: 1. Mortgage valuation, for the mortgagee's benefit (albeit paid-for by the mortgagor [borrower]). 2. Homebuyer Report. Sufficient for most residential property purchases. 3. Full Structural Survey. Very detailed, but very expensive too.   Irrelevant question. One need not be a Chartered Surveyor to carry-out any of those three.  It most certainly isn`t an irrelevant question. Why are people being employed to do valuations or surveys or whatever you want to call it, who don`t actually know much ? Actually, it`s even worse, they know a little, but not enough*. What do they say about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing ? I think we`re missing the essential point here : £240. When buying and selling houses amounts such as this are thought of as being small change. But it`s not small change, it`s soddin` £240 ! Companies should be rather more careful about spending £240 of someone else's money, for nothing. Or at least with no comeback on the person who thought it might, possibly (very possibly) be necessary.  * They apparently know that tree roots may (very rarely) cause structural problems, but not enough about it to actually draw their own conclusion, even if it`s only a bleedin` conifer 5m from the house ! Edited April 6, 2016 by Justin Smith Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...