Building surveyor — Description of defects to roof and wall — Survey dictated — No contemporary notes — Plaintiffs wanting reassurance and advice — Whether defendant negligent — Whether report gave proper comment on defects disclosed — Whether defendant followed RICS practice guidance — Whether damages difference in value or cost of repairs — Whether plaintiffs entitled to damages for distress and inconvenience — Damages awarded
In August 1986 the plaintiffs requested the defendant chartered building surveyor to carry out a full structural survey and advise on value in respect of Nutford Farmhouse, Blandford, Dorset, a farmhouse built in the 18th and 19th centuries, which they were considering purchasing for £177,500. The defendant provided a 27-page report and advised that the valuation was fair and that no repairs would be substantial in terms of cost. In respect of the roof the defendant mentioned a number of defects concluding that: “a degree of ongoing maintenance and repair will be required to replace occasional tiles becoming damaged, particularly by frost …”. In relation to a wall he stated that it was sound, stable and in good condition.
Following the plaintiffs’ purchase of the property, and an inspection by a builder in respect of certain works, Peter Wadey FRICS carried out a structural survey and found that the roof was due for a major overhaul. The plaintiffs brought proceedings against the defendant claiming damages for the cost of repairs and for distress and inconvenience.
Held The claim was allowed and damages of £41,961.35 awarded.
There had been no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiffs in failing to read or pay sufficient attention to the body of the defendant’s report. The defendant’s departure from the recommendations in the RICS practice note on structural surveys for residential properties was serious in that it led to his report being strong on detail but excessively and negligently weak on reflective thought. Although he had mentioned defects in the roof his report gave an overall impression of reassurance to the plaintiffs. This impression was wrong and negligent. The practice of the defendant in dictating his report while carrying out the survey is inconsistent with the spirit of the practice note. Damages were awarded on the basis of the cost of repairs in the sum of £33,961.35 rather than on the basis of the difference in values in the sum of £15,000: Syrett v Carr & Neave (a firm) [1990] EGCS 110 applied. Further damages for distress and inconvenience of £8,000 were also awarded.
Jonathan Acton Davis (instructed by Goodman Derrick & Co) appeared for the plaintiffs; and Iain Hughes (instructed by Pinsent & Co) appeared for the defendant.
