Okay, so I know we have to have surveys to get mortgages and sometimes they save us from disaster but, in this age where surveyors are covering their backs against possible legislation by basically absolving themselves of any responsibility and liability for their comments - is there really any point? I wonder whether an experienced builder couldn't do just as well - given that, at the end of the day, whatever the survey says, you're on your own when it comes to making the final decision.
I see the point of mortgage valuations, and I think you get your money's worth, quite cheap and do what they say on the tin.
Homebuyers Reports - utter waste of money apart from the valuation aspect. Never seen one that didn't say unless you get a full structural survey, then I am not liable for any of the decisions you make based on my report.
Full Structural - I think this might be the most dubious of all because people think this is a 'guarantee' of houseworthiness and it's most definitely not. Still, way too many get-outs for surveyor, always recommending extra surveys by 'experts'- way too much back-watching and liability dodging.
It's occurred to me that a surveyor's main objective in doing ANY report is to avoid being sued and the best way to achieve this is to make sure the purchaser Doesn't buy the house!!!
They get paid if you buy it, but 'potentially' could be sued on a full structural survey - hence all the caveats and conditions and buck passing.
But if you don't buy the house, they still get paid and they can't be sued - hey presto - the perfect solution to earning your living as a surveyor.
Always paint the absolute worst possible picture of a house in the hope that the purchaser won't buy it thus freeing yourself from any potential litigation.
If they do buy the house - make sure you have so many get outs you can't be sued.
Either way you win but the best way is if you do the survey and they don't buy the house.
Does this not seem perverse... ?