A poll of surveyors shows strong support for the idea of pre-sale surveys.
When asked whether the new Government should introduce mandatory pre-sale surveys to speed up home buying and selling some 71% of respondents backed it with only 29% against.
The poll - by Countrywide Surveying Services - also delved into the practices of brokers and lenders, uncovering that 21% do not explain the difference between a valuation and a survey to borrowers.
In contrast, 79% stated they did clarify this distinction.
Barriers for customers to instruct a survey included the belief that the valuation is a ‘survey for the benefit of the customer rather than lender’ was the primary obstacle by 54% of respondents.
CSS claims this is undoubtedly linked to consumers not being told the difference between a survey and a valuation by a fifth of brokers or lenders.
Other barriers included knowledge (47%), cost (45%) and not being offered a survey in the first place (22%).
In terms of actively recommending borrowers to instruct a home condition survey, 39% of property professionals stated that they do this every time. Some 36% said sometimes, 12% suggested that this was not something for everyone, 9% replied never and 3% hardly ever actively recommend home condition reports.
These responses emerged at a Countrywide Surveying Services event involving over 300 surveyors, lenders, brokers and other property professionals.
Matthew Cumber, Managing Director at Countrywide Surveying Services, says: “It’s clear from these results that the industry sees significant value in pre-sale surveys as a means to help streamline the homebuying and selling process.
“By providing buyers with as much up-front property-related information as possible will provide greater levels of transparency and efficiency during such a complex and emotive process.
“There remain many barriers to overcome from a consumer perspective but many of these can be addressed relatively easily via education and advice.
“As such it underlines the importance of everyone involved in the process conveying the right information and messaging around surveys and helping consumers make informed early decisions about the property they are buying.”
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Getting the seller to commission a pre-survey makes perfect sense but we British seem to have the real issue with potential conflicts to interest here. Get over it! A qualified surveyor’s opinion should be as impartial and reliable as a doctor’s. The buyer can always commission their own as well if they have any concerns about an issue brought up by the seller’s survey. I used to have a friendly surveyor who was always happy to do a pre-survey at zero cost at the commencement of marketing, but without a client’s name on it, so there was no liability to anybody. The client’sname was then inserted once a buyer was found and they had the option to purchase the survey with their name on it, along with liability in their favour, at a slightly reduced rate. If they didn’t want to buy it, then the seller would indemnify the cost. Personally, I’d be offering a comprehensive package that included a basic survey as well as searches and a legal pack at the outset, payable by the seller, either in advance or possibly on completion/withdrawal.
Sorry, but am I missing something. I’m based in Scotland and the buyer has to have a Home Report Survey done pre marketing.
Are they proposing something else or does this only apply to England?
So what happens if the initial survey brings up a few things, the seller corrects them, do they have to get the surveyor back for another £2,000 to approve??
In addition to the issues raised in the comments above (or will they be below?), we have the issue of how Home condition reports are written. Anyone who is in estate agency will likely have seen enough reports to recognise that it is quite often just a compendium of standard paragraphs, usually given without any context, and also usually written purely to protect the Surveyor from future litigation (at the behest of their professional indemnity insurer). Once home condition reports provide context (e.g."This house is 60 years old an the roof is in the sort of condition you'd expect for its age and what you're paying for it, but might also need replacing in another 40 years" Rather than "The roof has had 60 years of wear and tear and you should immediately employ a specialist to make sure that it isn't going to fall in on your head and cost you tens of thousands of pounds to replace". I realise I am at living there, but that is how it is read by prospective buyers as things stand.
We can try selling a beautifully presented and well maintained Victorian terrace house these days and the homebuyers report comes out reading like Stephen King horror story.
Furthermore, would you trust a survey that's been commissioned by the owner of property? I'm sure that 99.9% of charted surveyors are Upstanding members of the profession, but if you were paying half million pounds would you trust the report that have been commissioned by the person who is trying to sell you the half £1 million house?
This is where attitudes need to change! Why would you not trust a survey report commissioned by the seller? Are you questioning the integrity of the surveyor? There is no reason why a survey cannot be carried out for the benefit of the house, irrespective of who pays, a bit like an MOT for a car. If you have ever seen a Home Condition Report (the only other option to date) you will see the difference between that and a Homebuyer's type report. It was a good idea last time around and remains a good idea!!
Please login to comment