Part 1 of this article explains the core components of a surveyor’s duty to a domestic purchaser, and how breach of duty is usually assessed by the Court. Part 2 discusses causation and loss in such claims.
Defects claims
The Scope and Breach of Duty of a Surveyor in Pre‑Purchase Surveys
The extent of the duty owed by a surveyor when carrying out a pre‑purchase inspection is determined fundamentally by (i) the type of survey instructed[1], (ii) the purpose of the report, and (iii) recognised professional standards (notably the RICS Home Survey Standard). These define not only what the surveyor must do, but also what they need not do, and what they must say when unable to do something. The standard of care is that of a reasonably competent practitioner providing the type and level of survey commissioned, judged at the time of inspection (as emphasised in cases such as Philips v Ward[2] and Watts v Morrow[3]).
Where the purchaser is not the client
Following Smith v Eric S Bush [1990] 1 AC 831, a surveyor instructed by a mortgage lender to carry out a valuation for mortgage purposes will generally owe a concurrent duty of care to the purchaser where the transaction involves an ordinary domestic householder purchasing residential property for owner-occupation, provided that the surveyor knows or reasonably foresees that the purchaser will receive and rely upon the valuation, and subject to the surveyor not having effectively disclaimed liability by a notice satisfying the requirement of reasonableness under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. T.
This article focuses on surveys commissioned by a domestic purchaser. While a full discussion of the Smith v Bush decision, and the limits of its applicability, is outside the scope of this article, if a duty of care is established on that basis, much of what is said below applies, with appropriate modifications, but it will be important to refer to the surveyor’s specific instructions. The obligations in this scenario will often be less extensive than the purchaser has assumed, usually being limited to spotting major structural problems with a significant impact on the value of the lender’s security.
The surveyor’s duty: a visual, non‑destructive inspection appropriate to the survey level
Level 1, 2 and 3 pre-purchase surveys
All RICS pre‑purchase surveys (Level 1, 2 and 3) are fundamentally visual and non‑intrusive unless expressly agreed otherwise. Even at Level 3, the most comprehensive, a surveyor is not required to open up fabric, disturb finishes, lift carpets, or rugs, remove wall linings, or use destructive/invasive methods.
This issue often raises its head in the context of hidden rot (for example in timber-framed houses) or structural defects. We see many claims brought against surveyors for failing to identify such defects, but often the key question has been overlooked, namely whether, at the time of the surveyor’s inspection, there were any observable signs that ought reasonably to have alerted a competent surveyor to the potential presence of rot or structural weakness. The fact that rot or a defect was subsequently discovered once the fabric of the building had been opened up post-purchase (usually during renovations) does not in itself establish breach of duty. The question is how the property presented on the day of inspection. This matters because many defects are discovered later, sometimes after deterioration, intrusive opening‑up, or subsequent works. The breach analysis does not proceed backwards from the eventual discovery; it proceeds from the contemporaneous presentation and what the professional should have identified, flagged, caveated, or recommended by way of further investigation at the time.
This question must be viewed in the context in which properties are typically marketed for sale; sellers will often redecorate and present their homes to maximum effect - cracks may be filled and freshly painted, while furniture can be strategically positioned to obscure tell‑tale evidence. Expert evidence (see below) will be necessary to establish whether a reasonably competent surveyor should nonetheless have detected signs of a defect, or perhaps suspected concealment.
The Court will base its analysis on the contemporaneous evidence, including marketing photographs, the inspection photographs, and site notes. Courts prefer contemporaneous evidence because it is less vulnerable to hindsight bias and will assist the Court decide what was actually available to be seen on the day and whether a competent professional should have advised differently.
The witness evidence of the surveyor, if available, will also be important to establish how the alleged defect appeared at the time and, if relevant, the reasons for not highlighting a potential defect.
It is not the case that every defect, no matter how minor, should result in a warning of concealed issues, or a recommendation for further investigations. The current RICS Home Survey Standard states, as follows:
"The RICS member’s knowledge will, at times, lead to a suspicion that a visible defect may affect other concealed building elements. In these circumstances, an RICS member must recommend that a further investigation is undertaken.
However, the RICS member must not recommend a further investigation just because a given building element is inaccessible within the confines of a normal inspection.[…] The RICS member should exercise professional judgement and must not call for further investigations only to cover him or herself against future liabilities.[4]"
A useful example is cracking to the walls; cracking is far from uncommon and can have many causes, both benign and more serious. The question will, again, be whether the advice given by the surveyor in respect of the cracking is reasonably competent; that is not to say that a surveyor is expected to correctly deduce the cause of cracking every single time. The test is whether the conclusions reached by the surveyor were reasonably competent given the evidence available.
This analysis was clearly reiterated in Watts v Morrow[5], where the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that a surveyor’s duty is to report on the condition of the property as it presents itself that day and to warn of risks that a reasonably competent surveyor should recognise at the time, even if concealed defects ultimately prove worse. Put another way, the obligation is not to guarantee the absence of defects or their extent, but to exercise reasonably competent judgment when assessing the evidence available on the day.
The standard of reasonable competence is assessed objectively by reference to the ordinary skilled member in the surveying profession, as established in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee[6], where the Court held that a professional is not negligent if they act “in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of… professionals skilled in that particular art.” The Bolam test emphasises that "reasonable competence" is assessed by comparison with the standards of a relevant peer group, not by perfection, or hindsight.
As a result, in a claim alleging a breach of this duty, expert evidence from an appropriate professional within the same discipline is required on the question of whether a surveyor fell below the required standard.
Expert evidence is central - but only if it is the right expert evidence
Breach in technical defects claims is usually determined through expert evidence on (i) what should have been seen/understood at inspection and (ii) what a competent professional should have said. The Court will give weight to appropriate expert evidence and contemporaneous evidence such as photographs.
The expert must, however, be suitably qualified to opine on the surveyor's discipline which will usually be Chartered Surveying. The opinions of a Structural Engineer or QS as to whether the surveyor met the standards to be expected of a reasonably competent Chartered Surveyor are, unsurprisingly, likely to be given limited, if any, weight by the Court. An example of this playing out in practice is Sansom v Metcalf,[7] where the Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge’s finding of negligence because he had accepted the evidence of a Structural Engineer on the question of whether a building surveyor had been negligent.
Failure to advise of risk
It may be that it is found that a surveyor was not in breach of duty for failing to report a structural issue and/or recommend further investigation but that they were in breach by failing to advise a risk of a defect. Again, expert evidence will be crucial to the question of whether the evidence available to the surveyor was sufficient to require a “risk warning”, particularly given that RICS requires surveyors to exercise judgment and reach a firm conclusion wherever possible. If the Court finds that a “risk warning” should have been given, causation will need to be considered very carefully, as ultimately the Courts will likely only find there to have been recoverable loss if the claimant can show that such advice would have affected the decision to proceed at the agreed purchase price. Causation is considered further in Part 2.
Case example
Hubbard v Bank of Scotland plc[8] (a case involving a valuation by the bank’s surveyor) is a good example of the above points in practice. The surveyor carried out a valuation for lending purposes. He noted cracking but concluded there was no evidence of recent movement. The expert surveyors inspected the property only after further cracking had become apparent and begun to cause problems. The judge relied on the surveyor’s contemporaneous site notes and photographs to show the appearance of the cracking at the time of inspection, and accepted the evidence of the defendant's expert that the conclusion that the cracking was historic was one that a reasonably competent surveyor could have reached. The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Bottom line on breach: “reasonable competence”, matched to scope, anchored to date
In summary, breach is assessed by asking what a reasonably competent surveyor, carrying out the particular instruction given, would have reported or recommended in light of what was reasonably observable at the date of inspection. The Court compares the scope of the retainer, the contemporaneous evidence, and the standard of competent professional practice with the contents of the defendant’s report to determine whether there was any omission, misstatement, or failure to warn. That finding then informs the subsequent questions of causation and loss, which are addressed in Part 2 of our article.
[1] For example Level 1, 2 or 3
[2] [1956] 1 All ER 874
[3] [1991] 4 All ER 937
[4] RICS, Home Survey Standard, UK 1st edition, November 2019, Effective from 1 March 2021, "4.9 Further Investigations" – here accessed on 16 February 2026
[5] See footnote 3, above
[6] [1957] 1 WLR 582
[7] [1998] EGLR 103
[8] [2014] EWCA Civ 648
