Hart & Anor v Large & Ors (Rev 1)

A professional surveyor must exercise reasonable skill and care within the scope of the service agreed. Choosing a HomeBuyer Report rather than a building survey is not negligent where reasonably competent surveyors could differ. The choice of report does not, however, relieve the surveyor of the continuing duty to identify visible defects, report limitations, recommend further investigation where appropriate, and keep the advice under review.

For a recently reconstructed property lacking ordinary contractual or warranty protection, the surveyor and conveyancing solicitor have complementary roles. Where concealed defects cannot reliably be assessed, the surveyor should explain the limitation and identify appropriate protection, such as a Professional Consultant’s Certificate. In a no-transaction case, damages may reflect the difference between the value as reported and the value with the defects actually existing where the negligent advice concerned protection against risks beyond the surveyor’s ability to identify.

The claimants purchased a recently reconstructed coastal property after instructing the first defendant, a surveyor, to provide an RICS HomeBuyer Report. They alleged that he should have recommended a building survey, identified defects, warned that damp-proofing could not be inspected, and advised them to obtain a Professional Consultant’s Certificate.

The property subsequently revealed extensive water-ingress, damp-proofing and workmanship defects. The claimants also settled claims against the conveyancing solicitors and architects. The issues were whether the surveyor had been negligent, whether his advice caused the purchase, whether the solicitors’ negligence broke the chain of causation, and how damages should be assessed.

1. Liability. The claim that a building survey was necessarily required failed. The evidence showed that reasonably competent surveyors could differ on the appropriate form of report, so the Bolam standard was not breached merely by selecting a HomeBuyer Report.
2. The surveyor nevertheless had a continuing duty to keep the advice under review. The HomeBuyer service did not permit him to treat the selected format as an answer to defects that ought to have been reported. In a recently reconstructed property, he had to guard against being reassured by the involvement of architects or building control and had either to explain the limits of what could be assessed or investigate with particular care.
3. The surveyor should have reported that relevant damp-proofing could not be seen and that further investigation was required. He should also have drawn attention to visible signs of poor workmanship, including the binding front door and defective falls, roofing details and terrace workmanship.
4. He was negligent in failing to recommend in the report that the claimants obtain a Professional Consultant’s Certificate, and in failing to state in his later email that obtaining it was essential. The certificate was important both as protection against latent defects and as evidence of the architects’ willingness to stand behind the redevelopment.
5. The claimants would not have proceeded without the certificate. It would not have been provided. Although the conveyancing solicitors were also causatively negligent, their negligence did not break the chain of causation.
6. Damages. The usual diminution-in-value approach for surveyors was inappropriate on these facts. The proper measure was the difference between the value of the property with the defects as reported and its value with all the defects that actually existed. The property was valued on the basis that a purchaser would demolish and rebuild. Damages were assessed at £750,000 for diminution in value, reduced by £376,000 received from the settled defendants, plus £7,500 for each claimant for inconvenience and distress.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.