Here comes the Latin
I received a mild rebuke recently from a regular reader who was disquieted by my use of a Latin phrase, without translation. (Nearly wrote 鈥渟ans鈥 translation there but that would undoubtedly have prompted a further rebuke.)
In defence, I would say that the only truly useful subjects I ever studied were Latin and philosophy. One for the fundamentals of speech and the other for the fundamentals of thought. Soon, I hope to master both.
Anyway, more Latin today - but this time with a helpful translation. My return to the Imperial tongue was prompted by an .
. This means that the person flogging a house commissions a survey - and makes that available to all potential purchasers.
The new team at St Andrews House is minded to implement this notion. Housing Minister Stewart Maxwell says the system could be in place by the end of this year.
The stated advantage is that it will simplify the property market, saving umpteen potential purchasers the hassle and expense of commissioning their own surveys.
Here comes the Latin. "Caveat emptor". (That means: buyer, beware.) And my own personal favourite tag: 鈥淐ui bono?鈥 (That means, roughly: in whose interest? To whose good? Who gains? Who benefits?)
Buyer beware is fairly obvious. Buyers should ca鈥檆anny when they鈥檙e signing up for something costing vast wads of cash. They need to be sure of their ground: in this case, literally.
Can they really, really trust a survey and price valuation which has been drawn up at the behest of the party of the first part: that is, the guy flogging the house?
Will they not be inclined, for security, to get their own valuation and survey in any case? I think I would.
And cui bono? In politics and life, you should always ask whose interest is served by a particular statement or initiative. The answer to such a question may well disclose more than is apparent at first reading/hearing.
Say a surveyor has been commissioned by an eager seller - as opposed to a sceptical and anxious buyer. Will that surveyor really, really take care to point out all the flaws?
The damp patch in the attic? The vacant plot opposite with extensive planning permission? The proposed new airline flight path?
Now, you will me they are dispassionate professionals, determined to give an honest picture. I accept that.
But should they be placed in such a dilemma serving two masters (or many more if there are, as happens, several potential buyers?)
I'm 
Comments
The 'proof of the pudding' (I don't know the latin for this) is whether you can obtain a mortgage using the sellers survey. If the answer is 'yes' a lot of problems are mitigated, if not it's all a waste of time.
My concern with this is having to stump up the funds before you can put a property on the market. What of people on low incomes/pensioners who are just managing to scrape by each month paying all the bills? What if the house doesn't sell quickly?
And yes, I'd prefer to have my own survey done.
I've got part of a Latin tag in answer to your argument, Brian " Veni Vidi" minus the "Vici" As an unsuccessful potential buyer of a number of years experience and failed bids, the translation, might be something like " I came, I had a good shufti round but I didnae buy it" This system means that you have useful extra information at an early stage of the game, saving a considerable amount of money on eventually useless surveys. Would I get my own survey done if actually within sight of buying? Absolutely. ( First property that I came out as winning bid on had 拢6,000 worth of rotten floorboards - no agreement reached with seller, so no house). In what way is this system better than the currently available subject to survey option? Not sure, but it gives extra free information which has to be good.
I'm not translating "veni vidi vici", other than the paraphrase above. Anyone who is equipped to comment on blogs surely has the nous to google "useful bits of Latin" or some such thing.
Morituri te salutant.
Keep using the Latin, Brian!!
this idea is quite simply the most hare brained piece of legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament....and it does have a lot of competition.
The intention was to stop "multiple surveys".I don't think it will do so
I know no-one who will trust such a survey.Thus any buyer will instruct a second survey to "check" the seller's.
What happens if the house doesn't sell quickly...would you even remotely trust a survey that was done 8/10/12 weeks previously...how often does the seller have to "update" the report?
I don't know if you're right. I'm inclined to look more favourably on it, as the system at the moment seems only to favour solicitors. Now I know why McLetchie's so against it, but why you?
Aye keep throwing the odd bit of Latin in Brian it does wonders for our education. What about he occassional Confucian saying in Mandarin? Maybe some Inuit sayings now and then? Can't wait! :-)
Many people now buy 'subject to survey', rather than spend money having surveys on houses they may end up outbid on. I therefore can't see what buyers gain by seeing a seller's survey. It could easily have been written by a surveyor pal as a homer. Anyone with any sense will get their own survey done anyway.
At last!!
Surveyors in Edinburgh have had it too easy for too long.
I remember just a couple of years back when we bought a flat in Edinburgh and discovered that there had been 9 notes of interest (nothing un usual in that) and 9 surveys of the same property!
At an average cost of 拢160 + VAT each = 拢1692.00 total amongst all surveyors!!
Money for nothing as quite often the very same surveying companies are employed.
With the offers over system in Scotland it is often very hard to make a judgenment on final selling price.
Properties are often offered at unrealistically low "offers over prices" to get lots of interets and when surveyed (at your cost)you find the "real value" is just so much higher.
Brians right if in doubt there is no harm haviong your own done but these free to purchaser surveys are a good start.
Bravo Scottish Government!
Have we not learned the risks of this approach? One of the big stories of the last 6 months has been the credit crunch and part of that story is the part played by the ratings agencies who gave such fantastic ratings to all this structured debt that turns out to be infected by sub-prime mortgages and so is worth nothing like as much as investors thought. And who pays these rating agencies? You've guessed it - the people selling the debt, not those who are buying it!
Conflict of Interest - you bet!
The Lender will still request that you get your own survey done, so its just a waste of time and money.
The big question that needs to be asked is to whom will the surveyors be answerable and for how long will they be held answerable ?
The persons conducting these surveys must therefore be registered by statute to perform the survey and liable for its accuracy backed by an indemnity to cover the cost of compensation or any subsequent litigation.If they take the money then they must do the job properly , not with the threat of a wrist slap from a professional body but with the threat of prosecution and the full weight of the law.
The question is, can we hold the information in these surveys against their authors, in Court, should we rely on them when buying a house and later find we have been misled?
If so, then I don't see the problem.
I understand Latin perfectly well, as do most of us who had the benefit of what the Scottish education system USED to be!
But what's ca'canny?
I foresee that the Government will end being responsible for the accuracy/reliability of these surveys. Thus costing us all a packet, even those who live in council properties and have no house to sell!
Brian, I love your comments and normally agree with most of them.
Where is the logic however in saying that you accept that surveyors are professional and will offer a dispassionate view; and then try to rubbish the proposed system by implying that a surveyor may not be minded to give a dispassionate view?
Either we should trust the profession, or not.
Do you trust them to be honest?
(I am not a surveyor and have no vested interest, just want a wee blether!).
The buyer and the Seller will have equal recourse to the surveyor, but the seller will pay up front for the survey
This is pretty much how standard building contracts operate, both parties have equal recourse to the information provided...... even although it's generally the client who pays for the survey/drawings.....
As a first time buyer I'm more than happy about this , it will truly level the playing field and basically revolutionise the property market in Scotland.
As someone involved with the building and maintenance of buildings and with a keen interest in lowering carbon emissions, these survey's will provide a good stick & carrot with which to ensure that sellers take care of their homes and carry out energy efficiency measures......
The only losers are people trying to sell dodgy houses and even they don't lose out, they just get a price that reflects what the house is actually worth and including for remedials....
Scottish Government going from Strength to Strength
Presumably, Brian, a buyer who found themselves with a house which had serious problems would be able to sue the surveyors if they had been provided with flawed information... (if it can be shown that the negligence of the surveyor led directly to quantifiable loss for the buyer). This is the usual position with solicitors anyway, although, firstly, it may be different where the surveyor has been employed by the buyer as there is no contractual relationship between surveyor and buyer and, secondly, the liability of lawyers mainly arises from matters of gross negligence (such as failing to lodge papers timeously). Still, I think this is a possibility if the Govt goes down this avenue.
Firstly, most people know fine well that the survey is often 'tailored' to the actual offering price (unless the house goes to a closing date - then a 'golden mean' approach is taken). So any objection which talks about 'not trusting' one survey over another does not carry with it the credibility of experience.
Any legislation which overhalls the often dubious surveying process is welcome. Especially one which will encourage a single survey which is far more rigorous in its inspection than the current one.
Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.
Vah! Denuone Latine loquebar? Me ineptum. Interdum modo elabitur.
I agree with you Brian, philosophy was the most enjoyable and useful subject I ever studied.
As for the question of house surveys I would say there should be no problem at all with the proposed idea so long as estate agents and surveyors are all trustworthy people.
Oh, damn...
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
I'll get my coat...
Trouble with this is that the survey is only valid at the point the seller secures one. What happens if the property does not sell after 3 months... No mortgage lender is going to release funds based on an unauthorised survey report it hasn't commissioned and which may be hugely out of date. It didn't work in England and it wont work here. Utterly stupid and ill-thought through idea. But once again it is Joe Punter left to pick up the bill whilst the big corporations and lawyers get even richer.
n defence, I would say that the only truly useful subjects I ever studied were Latin and philosophy."
Might I suggest, Brian, that a subject you should have studied more would have been "Scottish History?"
Oh I forgot-if you were, on a regular basis, to remind our readers of such things as Culloden, the clearances, the rape of Scotland by the establishment of its many resources, etc.. I would imagine your bosses at the Bean broadcasting Co would have had no option but to dispense with your services pdq!
Note you are very quiet today brian, on two significant things which have happened courtesy of the SNP:-
1. removal of tolls from next week and
2. Large numbers of quangos to be donae away with.
Why are you so quiet Brian-Is all this good news too much for you? Or is it simply that it did NOT happen courtesy of the nulab numpties?
Will you publish, Brian?
In Denmark, the seller's survey has been used for years. It works there because the buyer can sue the seller for any defects not mentioned in the survey (and so, a seller's insurance is essential), so it's in the seller's interest to make sure the survey is complete and accurate.
As newcomers from Canada, we recently bought a house in Scotland. As part of the process, we commissioned, via our solicitor, a full survey that cost us 500 pounds.
We paid for the survey in good faith, only to discover that it was a complete waste of money because the so-called "registered" surveyor, who was a friend of the solicitor--- whom we thought we paid to act in OUR best interest---, spent less than one hour giving the house a cursory glance.
We later discovered, among other flaws that were never mentioned in the report, that over two dozen roof slates were cracked and required replacing immediately.
This single survey is a start, but it's a plaster on a hemorrhage, in our opinion. The property system in Scotland is rotten because solicitors here act as real estate agents, controlling and profiting from every aspect of it. It's gobmackingly corrupt: you have a system where the same law firm can make money from vendors and buyers of the same property, and where solicitors and surveyors can clearly collude to fleece unsuspecting buyers---as no doubt they will do with vendors as well.
The only way to fix the system is to legislate against solicitor conflict of interest and profiteering from the housing market here.
Right. Like that's gonna happen anytime soon.
If you insist on latin tags:
"nemo dat quod non habet"
ie you cannot, as a buyer, get more than the seller has to give.
Anyway, on point, this single survey stuff is a Labour-inspired response to a problem that no longer exists.
People now offer subject to survey, and only shell out for a survey if their offer has been accepted.
Problem solved, without legislation. If Labour thought it was the answer, then it is probably precisely the wrong thing to do.
Give it up, Maxwell.
Frankly the existing system in Scotland is a mess. Multiple surveys commissioned and paid for before anyone really knows the price of the house? Paying for a survey on a house listed at an *affordable* price only to find it is being sold for 拢50k more is an unwarranted waste of the buyer's money and time.
Move to the English system where the survey is paid once a sale is agreed in principle. Then you get the surveyor acting for the purchaser and massive amounts of fees are saved by the rest. This nonsense of an *auction* with a closing date is arcane.
Let's face it - an average 4 surveys per property is lining someone's pockets - and that ain't the purchasers or the vendors. Multiply that by the number of properties an individual purchaser looks at seriously before successfully buying and it is an outrage.
It isn't the survey system that needs replacing it's the whole sale system north of the border.
what a millennium dome of an idea!
Great to hear your views on Latin, Brian - as a Latin teacher in a comprehensive in the east end of Glasgow I would welcome them! When I entered teaching in 1990, Latin was a relatively common subject, and certainly much stronger here than in England; now it is reduced to tiny numbers whilst in England the number of schools teaching it has doubled in five years...o tempora! o mores!
I also teach History. When you read the comments of wag y (post 21), I would suggest that he needs to study Scottish History too - minus his Nat-tinted glasses. Seriously, this is the kind of comment which has teachers concerned - the cry "we need to teach more Scottish history" from some quarters is really a plea to pamper to that unattractive Scottish desire to feed our self-pity - I am sure there was plenty of teaching of Serb nationalism in schools there before 1990.
Anyway, the change of legislation will be a boon for surveyors. Most people point out that the impartiality of the seller-led survey is doubtful. Banks and Building Societies may not accept them, and ask for the buyer to obtain another one......back to square one I fear.