TECHNICAL BULLETIN
ISSUE 33
DECEMBER 2019
KNOW WHO YOUR CLIENT REALLY IS A CAUTIONARY TALE SAVA TECHNICAL TEAM
In this article we relate the tale of a claim against a surveyor – where the claim wasn’t by the person who had commissioned the survey in the first place (who we will call A) – but was in fact another person (who we will call B). The success of this claim hinged on whether person B was also the client. It was a complicated situation and we cannot go into too much detail, but we hope that by sharing it other surveyors can take care to prevent something similar happening to them.
Brief background
the client and surveyor were known to each other – not as friends but as business acquaintances.
The surveyor in question completed a Home Condition Survey in 2013. The surveyor was commissioned by A. A was known to the surveyor, being a local businessman. It was A who signed the terms of engagement and paid the invoice and it was his name on the front of the report. All emails between the surveyor and A regarding the inspection and the report were addressed solely to or from A. However, on a couple of the emails a third person with a different surname was copied in and A used the term ‘we’.
The surveyor carried out the inspection and provided the survey report, naming A on the front of the report. We should also highlight that the report contained a disclaimer which stated that the report was for the use of the client and that the surveyor accepted no liability if it was used by someone else. The only query raised by A was about obtaining additional information that had not been available on the date of inspection. The surveyor answered this query and heard no more. It is also worth noting that another RICS valuer also inspected the subject property and endorsed the value of the Property. Neither surveyor considered that there were significant defects at the time of the original inspection which had an impact on value.
The surveyor was not advised in any email exchange who this third person was and indeed, because the surname was different it did not occur to them to clarify that the client was anyone other than solely A. The key point here is that
10
