SAVA Technical Bulletin May 2016 by Aly Mac

SAVA

TECHNICAL BULLETIN For members of the SAVA Scheme

GARDEN WALLS Reporting the risks Page

THE SAVA PROTOCOL

Promoting a consistent approach Page

CAN I DICTATE MY SITE NOTES? Recording your evidence Page

ISSUE 22 MAY 2016

ISSUE 22

THE SAVA TECHNICAL BULLETIN

| MAY 2016

CONTENTS 03

THE SAVA TECHNICAL BULLETIN

THE SAVA PROTOCOL

Welcome to the SAVA Technical Bulletin. Here you will find articles, guides, convention changes and updates that focus on Home Condition Surveys and associated non-energy issues.

Promoting a consistent approach 09

GARDEN WALLS

This publication is designed for members of the SAVA Scheme who offer the Home Condition Survey.

Reporting the risks

We trust that you will find it useful in your day-to-day work and we welcome any feedback you have about what you would like to see covered in future editions.

CAN I DICTATE MY SITE NOTES? Recording your evidence

CONTACT SAVA

Head office: SAVA, National Energy Centre, Davy Avenue, Milton Keynes, MK5 8NA Telephone number: 01908 672787 Email: bulletins@nesltd.co.uk Web: www.sava.org.uk

CPD

CPD is a commitment by members to continually update their skills and knowledge in order to remain professionally competent. The SAVA Technical Bulletin is worth 30 minutes of CPD and can be recorded as such. More CPD can be found on the SAVA website.

SAVA is owned by National Energy Services (NES). While every reasonable effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of all content in this publication, NES has no responsibility for any errors or omissions in the content. The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of NES. NES cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage suffered by any person as a result of the content and the opinions expressed in this publication, or by any person acting or refraining to act as a result of the material included in this publication. All rights in this publication, including full copyright or publishing right, content and design, are owned by NES, except where otherwise described.

ISSUE 22

THE SAVA TECHNICAL BULLETIN

| MAY 2016

SAVA PROTOCOL Promoting a consistent approach HILARY GRAYSON DIRECTOR OF SURVEYING SERVICES, SAVA

Introduction

We sometimes get anecdotal feedback from surveyors to the effect that they don’t like the SAVA Protocol, that it doesn’t work and it doesn’t give them the ‘right answer’.

working on ‘the ladders’ and also assessing for the new Diploma in Residential Surveying and Valuation) and Ben Elder, who at the time worked at the College of Estate Management but who is now leads as the Global Director of Valuation at RICS.

As the protocol is embedded into the Product Rules, it is therefore a fundamental part of the rules and you should be applying it when using the HCS. We thought it might be useful to remind you why it was introduced in the first place and why we consider it so important.

Larry, Stephen and Gary are all building surveyors. The others are general practice surveyors and specialists in residential property. We knew that we had to adopt a consistent approach to assessment. As part of our responsibility as an assessment centre we have to provide as consistent an experience as possible for all learners. In a traditional NVQ environment this can be relatively straightforward, but for a more sophisticated and involved qualification, such as the then DipHI and the new Diploma in Residential Surveying and Valuation, this can be much more challenging.

History

The SAVA Protocol is one of the few remnants carried over from the original Home Condition Report scheme. Over time it has been slightly amended following surveyor feedback and particularly to adapt it for use in a buyer report scenario, but fundamentally it remains the same as the original version created about 10 years ago.

The protocol was created initially as a tool to use in assessment. It began life in the back garden of a bungalow in Bletchley. We were inspecting this property jointly as part of a standardisation exercise - we wanted to ensure that every surveyor assessing for us took the same approach. The bungalow was in reasonably good condition, but there were one or two issues with the roof covering and in particular the ridge tiles.

The SAVA Protocol arose out of necessity. Some will remember that SAVA was one of the leading training centres for the Home Inspector Qualification (DipHI) and early on in the development of the assessment regime for the DipHI SAVA assembled a team of experienced Chartered Surveyors to lead on training and assessment. Those people who trained with SAVA and with our then training partner, the College of Estate Management, will remember some of the surveyors. People such as Larry Russen (now part of BlueBox partners and still running CPD for SAVA), Stephen Neale (now lecturing at the University of Portsmouth), Gary Reynolds (now working at RICS) Ian Brindle and Anne Hinds (both then of Valunation, but now

Six very experienced surveyors stood in the back garden of that property. In theory, because we had the Product Rules for the Home Condition Survey in place at that point and because the surveyors were all very familiar with them, we should have had a consistent approach to the condition 03

ISSUE 22

THE SAVA TECHNICAL BULLETIN ratings for that roof covering. In practice what we got was a range of condition ratings - 1, 2 and 3.

| MAY 2016

is one reason why the protocol is so important and why we insist on surveyors recording how they used the protocol (their decision process) as part of their site notes.

Clearly this was not sustainable. It meant that not only would assessment be completely inconsistent but also the approach that the learners took would be inconsistent as well. This meant that we would not be able, hand on heart, to guarantee to the awarding body that all the learners had met the required standard. So those surveyors locked themselves in a room and created the SAVA Protocol. They road tested it, made a few amendments, and then we introduced it as a fundamental part of training and assessment for home inspectors doing the DipHI.

With the site notes and evidence to hand, we can gain an insight into the thought process of the surveyor. With that information we can then determine whether or not we think the complaint or claim is justified. Remember, on average a complaint arises around six months after the survey was completed, so even if the surveyor was handling the complaint, the chances are they would not recall exactly how they reached the condition rating.

And it worked! Using the protocol, these surveyors could consistently allocate condition ratings to properties that they inspected together. And here is a very important thing about the protocol - even if they did not agree on the final condition rating, what they could agree on was the thought process that they had used to get to the condition rating and they were able to debate the professional judgements made at the various decision points along the way.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that we are trying to create a consistent product with the Home Condition Survey. Most customers are not well-versed in the nuances of different sorts of survey. Many also do not understand the concept of the ‘level of inspection’ and indeed the concept of a contract defining the exact level of service that they are buying from the surveyor. The more we can do to ensure a consistent approach is taken to the inspection and report writing process then the better it will be for everybody in the long run - for surveyors and their customers alike.

Product Rules

So How Do You Use the Protocol?

And so the SAVA protocol was born.

The first thing to point out is that the protocol is not designed to undermine your professional judgment as a surveyor. Rather, it is there to regiment your thought processes, to make you approach each problem consistently and indeed to trigger a thought or consideration (which may necessitate you doing a bit more research). The key point is that it is a decision process.

Fast forward a few years and the creation of the Home Condition Survey (HCS). By that time the protocol had been well used and tested and all of the assessors were convinced that it was the only way to guarantee that they had assessed learners consistently and fairly and that the learners had met the standards required. In other words the protocol had earned its Spurs.

When considering an element, do not start with ‘It’s a CR2’. It will not work if you try to back-fill the protocol into a decision you have already made. In fact, if you do that you could be putting yourself at risk.

So when SAVA created the HCS and the associated Product Rules it seemed sensible to include the protocol. A key aspect to the HCS is the pay per click insurance surveyors can use when they complete an HCS. At the time that the HCS scheme was created, and because the Home Condition Report had never got off the ground, the concept of pay per click insurance in a buyer survey environment was completely unique. Understandably, the insurers expressed some reticence about the level of risk and exposure and wanted to be reassured that SAVA was doing as much as possible to manage this risk.

Instead, always start with the protocol itself. The ‘boxes’ are the decision points, while the other wording outside of the boxes provides additional guidance or explanation to help you. Also, if you read the protocol carefully, you will see it is not defaulting to a CR3. What it is trying to do is to be balanced, objective and realistic. It recognises that, while the Building Regulations may demonstrate current best practice, not all houses are built to current Building Regulation standards. It is designed to reflect that, while not unnecessarily damning any properties that are simply not modern.

Part of the reassurance we are able to give is due to the Product Rules, and specifically the protocol which gives them a level of reassurance that surveyors are taking as consistent an approach as possible to the surveys that they undertake.

In addition, a decision point may necessitate some justification if your professional judgement is ever challenged. So it is useful to use the decision boxes as a trigger to record additional desk study etc. particularly if the issue you are considering is challenging.

Claims and Complaints

As you know, if the surveyor is unable to close a complaint off quickly, that’s where we come in. We will review the complaint and liaise with insurers where necessary. Consequently, we are now very experienced in looking at complaints and potential claims that arise when clients of SAVA Scheme members find something wrong with the property that they buy. (Indeed we are now probably more experienced than any member of the SAVA Scheme). This

Imagine you are surveying an early Victorian cottage. The chances are that the staircase will be much steeper and with narrower treads and possibly higher rises than allowed by the current Building Regulations. Is it a potential hazard? Of course it is – people have 04

ISSUE 22

THE SAVA TECHNICAL BULLETIN died from falling down staircases. However, the HCS is not designed to give all steep Victorian staircases a CR3, assuming no other repair is required. Follow the protocol and see where this leads you. Despite the fact this staircase is not built in accordance with modern Building Regulations we are giving it a Condition Rating 1. And that is fine, but it is important that you do bring to your client’s attention that it is a potential hazard and use Section C appropriately.

Conclusions

The SAVA Protocol is there to help you and your client. It was always designed to promote a consistent approach to surveying practices. Yes, it is a tool – but it is a mandatory tool. We insist that you use it with the HCS and that you record your decisions in line with the boxes. However, we believe it still gives you the flexibility to service your clients properly and to make professional judgements. If you want to challenge the protocol, please let us know. It is also a ‘living document’ – we know that the world changes and, when necessary, we will adapt the protocol to fit those changes.

| MAY 2016

ISSUE 22

THE SAVA TECHNICAL BULLETIN

| MAY 2016

ISSUE 22

THE SAVA TECHNICAL BULLETIN

| MAY 2016

ISSUE 22

THE SAVA TECHNICAL BULLETIN

| MAY 2016

RICS APPROACH FOR THE HOMEBUYER REPORT

In the reference book ‘A Surveyors Guide to RICS Home Surveys’ by Phil Parnham [published by RICS Books ISBN 978 184219 688 5] a similar case study to Example 2 is discussed. RICS publishes practice notes for members carrying out HomeBuyer Reports (RICS Homebuyer Service 2010 4th Edition Practice Notes 2010) and the RICS Condition Report – which is not the same as the SAVA Condition Survey (RICS Condition Report Practice Notes 1st Edition 2011). The approach Phil Parnham would take for a HomeBuyer Report is as follows: • Is there a safety hazard - Yes • If yes, does it pose a direct threat – Yes • Is this hazard caused by a defect – No • OUTCOME – CR 1 Interestingly, Phil mentions that not all practitioners agree with his approach and would give the element at CR3. While this difference of approach is fine for surveyors operating independently, it does illustrate how confusing this could be for the home buying public and we would not find it very difficult to defend surveyors if this variation was acceptable within the SAVA Scheme.

ISSUE 22

THE SAVA TECHNICAL BULLETIN

| MAY 2016

GARDEN WALLS Reporting the risks What Is the Problem and Why Is This Important

The Home Condition Survey does not allocate condition ratings to the grounds or any structures in the grounds of a property. In most cases this does not cause a problem because with most properties the grounds are fairly ‘contained’ and the structures within them are simple or temporary. However, in some situations the grounds themselves, and particularly some of the structures within those grounds, for example retaining walls, can have a significant impact on the ‘quiet enjoyment’ of the particular property. It is also probably true to say that the majority of homeowners are not fully conversant with their responsibilities, and indeed liabilities, when it comes to some garden structures and it is the responsibility of the surveyor to report appropriately, even where no detailed commentary or condition rating is required.

there could also be a risk to the property itself. Consequently, walls and boundaries at a property are important and it is the surveyors’ role to understand and report on the issues and implications for a purchaser. Furthermore, garden structures and the perceived value they may have for the purchaser can lead to misunderstandings and potential complaints or even claims - a situation that nobody wants.

How to Approach the Inspection

The first problem that a surveyor may encounter is actually who is responsible for a wall.

The issue with freestanding masonry walls is the fact that they are subject to wind and weather from all sides. If a wall fails there is risk of collapse and this can put people at risk. If a wall also acts to mark the boundary of a property, then in the event of failure of the wall that risk could be extended to people outside of the property. A collapsing wall can cause severe injury or death. In addition, where there is a retaining wall 09

ISSUE 22

THE SAVA TECHNICAL BULLETIN It is not always possible to determine this during an inspection, unless the wall is wholly within the curtilage of the property being inspected. Even if it appears fairly obvious who a wall or boundary belongs to, without reference to any legal documentation this cannot be determined absolutely. Consequently, this should be highlighted for the conveyancer to make further investigations.

| MAY 2016

Different wall heights require different construction techniques and engineering usual practice is as follows: • Mass masonry wall This is simple brick, block or stone construction and relies on the weight of the wall to hold back the retained ground. The usual height range is up to 1.5 metres. Depending on the height of the retained soil behind the wall the wall should have a foundation ranging from 500mm wide for a low wall (up to 800 mm high) to 1100mm wide for a higher wall up to 1725mm high. The width of wall itself should also be ‘stepped’ for heights over 800mm. [Further details on Brickwork or Blockwork retaining walls is available from the BRE Good Building Guide 27 – Building Brickwork or Blockwork Retaining Walls]

Unless it is glaringly obvious that a wall is not the responsibility of the owner of the property you are inspecting, even though you do not have the definitive information to hand, you should work on the assumption that walls are the responsibility of the owner of the property, record that assumption in the notes relating to the inspection, state that assumption in the report and proceed accordingly.

• Reinforced masonry wall The reinforcement enhances the strength of the masonry wall and allows greater retained heights. Usual height range is from 1.2 to 3.0 metres.

The product rules for the HCS make it very clear that you should walk around the extent of the grounds making a visual inspection of external and internal permanent buildings where it is safe to do so and where access is available. You should take the same approach with walls, whether retaining or not. Where access is not possible, for instance where a garden is completely overgrown or a garage or outbuilding is smothered with Ivy, then you should record those limitations very clearly with photographs and a site plan and you should make it clear in the report that your inspection was limited due to the overgrown nature of the grounds.

• Reinforced concrete wall Reinforced concrete is significantly stronger and more robust than masonry. Also there will be less water penetration through the wall. Usual height range is above 1.8 metres.

Why Do Retaining Walls Fail?

There can be a number of reasons for a retaining wall to fail. 1. Design or building errors – for instance where the reinforcing in either a masonry or reinforced concrete wall has been incorrectly positioned, where the designer was unaware of additional loads on the ground (such as traffic or an adjacent building etc.) the level of the water table etc. 2. Saturated or waterlogged back fill – best practice dictates that the retaining side of the wall should be backfilled with lightly compacted, non–cohesive material and specifically clay or soils with a lot of organic material should be avoided as these could swell with a lot of water and put additional pressure on the wall. Also, the area immediately behind the wall should ideally be filled with a free draining course aggregate, gravel or similar and this in turn should be separated from the main back fill by a geotextile filter fabric. The back fill material should slope and drainage channels be incorporated to deflect water away from the wall.

A garden wall totally obscured by vegetation resulting in a limitation of inspection

It goes without saying that while you are inspecting the grounds you should be alert to the risk of Japanese knotweed, but we have covered this in a recent addition of the bulletin and do not intend to specifically deal with knotweed again in this article. [See Issue 19: April 2015]

3. Blocked weep holes – weep holes should be at least 75mm in diameter and at least at 1m intervals, but they won’t work if blocked and the blockage could be down to the back fill material clogging the hole or weeds growing out of the hole.

The Definition of a Retaining Wall

4. The situation changes – for instance where there have been changes to the actual structure of the wall, the ground in front or above the wall, the use of the adjacent land or planting or trees etc. since the wall was designed or built.

An accepted definition of a retaining wall is a wall used at the boundary of different ground levels, where the height of the ground on one side is different to the other side. A retaining wall can also be a boundary wall, but it might also be a wall within the curtilage of the subject property. 10

ISSUE 22

THE SAVA TECHNICAL BULLETIN

Inspecting and Reporting on Retaining Walls

Causes of distress or potential problems for retaining walls are: • Deflection or bulging of the wall – use a plumb bob to see if a wall is straight (assuming it was designed to be a straight wall) • Cracking (and in particular vertical cracks) • Blocked or no weep holes • Evidence of change since the wall was built – traffic, plants, adjacent buildings • Evidence of bad design or construction – for instance no coping stones on the top of the wall It would be sensible to create your own checklist to ensure that where there are retaining walls you remember to look for all the relevant issues. (See also the check list for freestanding walls right). In terms of reporting on the wall, you will need to take into account the impact on people or property in the event that the wall should fail and although not specifically attributing a condition rating to the wall, the SAVA Protocol will be a useful tool to help you do this. Example – assume the wall in question is leaning over and a narrow crack runs from the top to the bottom of the wall.

How to Report on the Garden Walls

When considering freestanding walls there are a number of key things to look out for: • Can the wall withstand any wind loads – is it strong enough or might it be susceptible to collapse in strong winds? • Is the wall built of frost resistant material? • Does the wall have suitable cappings or copings to prevent water getting into the structure of the wall from the top? • Have there been any changes to the wall or its surroundings since it was built that might impact on it. For instance: • Has a new opening been inserted into the wall?

| MAY 2016

ISSUE 22

THE SAVA TECHNICAL BULLETIN • Have there been any changes on the land use that might impact on the wall (traffic vibration etc.)?

| MAY 2016

• Inadequate foundations • Tree damage

• Is there any vegetation (trees etc.) that could impact on the stability of the wall?

• Overloading • Impact – this might be from a vehicle but could also be from something falling from overhead, such as a tree branch in a garden.

• Are there any cracks or other distortions?

Wind Loading

The BRE has produced a useful Good Building Guide on “Surveying Brick or Blockwork Freestanding Walls” (GBG 13 available as a download from the BRE Website). The guide contains a useful table on the best heights for different brick wall types depending on the area of the country the wall is in. This is a very useful guide and an essential addition to a surveyors’ technical library.

Cracks need urgent attention if they: • Occur in piers • Occur at a wall/pier junction • If they are over 5mm wide and occur within 2 bricks of an end pier

In summary the BRE guide can be interpreted as follows:

• Any crack that occurs within 2 bricks of a pier supporting a gate

Coping or Capping Stones

• Are a stepped crack over 5mm wide affecting a length of wall greater than 600mm

According to the BRE missing coping are one of the most common problems for freestanding walls. They might have been omitted in the first place or may have failed due to the impact of weather. Copings prevent water getting into the wall fabric. This can lead to additional problems, notably sulphate attack or frost damage. Where copings or cappings are missing from a wall this should be recorded on the site notes and considered carefully.

• Are a horizontal crack that runs for longer than 600mm and penetrate the full thickness of the wall Minor cracks which can usually be ignored are: • Hairline cracks to mortar only away from a pier • Hairline crack to mortar and bricks away from a pier • Where more than one hairline crack exists but they are some distance apart and that distance is at least equal to or greater than the height of the wall

Cracks in Walls

Cracks could be caused by a range of problems.

Other cracks will need monitoring and/or possible further investigation.

Leaning or Bowing Walls

Many of the problems that cause cracks could also result in leaning or bowing of a wall. In particular leaning or bowing might be associated with a change in the drainage of the land, perhaps because of changes to a ditch or drain in the vicinity. Another example could be flooding – so particular care will be needed if surveying properties in areas that were recently subject to winter storms and flooding, even if the house itself escaped direct damage. A bowing or leaning wall has the potential to be a very dangerous wall and the BRE has published a helpful guide to help identify when a leaning wall is a dangerous wall.

• Frost damage – usually near the base of the wall • Sulphate expansion – where there are high levels of sulphate in the construction materials

Where a wall needs to be dismantled and this could affect public safety or even traffic (for example if safety precautions require temporary closure of a pavement) then public authorities will have to be involved. This will involve additional hassle and cost and needs to be considered when commenting in the report.

• Natural shrinkage, expansion or movement – these may follow the mortar lines, usually appear within a year of the wall being built and may be associated with a lack of movement joints or they may be created where materials in the wall have a different rate of expansion • Soil movement – heave or subsidence 12

ISSUE 22

THE SAVA TECHNICAL BULLETIN

| MAY 2016

Inspecting and Reporting on Freestanding Walls Your checklist should include:

• Wall height – is it an acceptable height for the location and form of construction? • Are any piers properly constructed and bonded to the rest of the wall? • Is the wall straight (is it level and is it plumb)? • Are movement joints present? • Is there damage caused by weather (crumbling of bricks etc.), traffic, plants and trees? • Have there been changes in the wall since construction – eg. a new opening, changes in adjacent land use etc.? • Are there cracks and if so where are they, how big are they, what pattern are they and do they penetrate the full width of the wall?

Frost damage at the base of a garden wall

• Is the wall likely to be in a conservation area, listed, of local significance etc.? Use your camera to record any issues, whether significant or not, and you can consider this further later on as part of reflective thought. When you are considering the wall as you write your report later, as with retaining walls use the protocol to help channel your thought process and report accordingly.

Check alignment of the wall with a spirit level or plumb bob

CAPTION CORNER An inspired plumber! Please send us your caption suggestions to bulletins@nesltd.co.uk by Friday 27th May 2016 for a chance to win a prize. The winner will be published in the next bulletin! Do you have a picture for the next edition? Send any photos for consideration to the email address above.

CAPTION CORNER RESULTS A creative builder has been at work! The winning submission this month is Steve Funnell with: “I’ve heard of having a bucket list, but this surely caps it all!”

ISSUE 22

THE SAVA TECHNICAL BULLETIN

| MAY 2016

CAN I DICTATE MY SITE NOTES? Recording your evidence RAJVINDER KAUR CUSTOMER SUPPORT, SAVA

in a format that someone else can understand them. This includes our audit team, the claims handlers at the insurance company, a solicitor or even a barrister in the unfortunate event that a complaint ends up in court.

We recently had an enquiry from a member about dictating site notes while on site. Our knee jerk reaction is that you should absolutely never dictate notes on site, but we referred the query to our insurers and had this response from them:

• Written or dictated notes can never replace clear and well annotated photographs, floor plans and site plans. We find, when handling claims and complaints, that it is the plans and photographs that are more, likely to provide a robust defence to the surveyors actions than the written notes.

“We do not recall coming across any previous claims where dictated site notes have ever been present, but in principle we do not see there being any significant issues with this practice, provided that the surveyors do still take photographs of the property and any defects so that if challenged at a later date they do have evidence to back their findings up with.

• You must take great care not to actually dictate the report on site. You must be able to evidence ‘reflective thought’ – that you have carefully considered the issues presented, where appropriate researched them properly and applied the correct condition ratings for the HCS.

In addition, they will need to ensure that, when dictating, they make it very clear exactly what areas of the property they are referring to whenever they raise issues, and we would strongly suggest that surveyors should also ensure they keep back up dictated files on a separate computer/ device.

• You will still have to record how you determined the condition rating for each element – how you used the protocol to reach your decision.

Subject to those points, however, we do not have any substantive concerns with surveyors dictating notes.” So, in summary the answer is ‘Yes, you can dictate your site notes’. However, caution needs to be applied.

• If, as part of the audit process, we see dictated site notes but we feel that they do not provide an adequate record of the inspection then we will insist on another method of recording the inspection.

• Whether written or dictated, the notes taken on site are a crucial part of the whole inspection and reporting process and must be recorded or saved in such a way as to be accessible in the future and