Sava Level 6 Surveying common mistakes
Sava Level 6 Surveying · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Carries out a room-by-room internal inspection without a fixed external-first, element-by-element sequence, so roof coverings, rainwater goods, drainage and boundaries are inspected last, briefly, or not at all.
Time pressure and following the occupier's conversation lead the surveyor from room to room rather than around the building fabric; external elements are assumed visible from the ground and left until the end.
What to do instead
Use a written element checklist ordered roof, rainwater, elevations, openings, services, boundaries, then internal rooms. Initial each element as inspected, limited or not accessed before entering the property, and record the reason for any limitation.
Records 'monitor' or 'further investigation required' without naming the defect mechanism, the monitoring method, the interval, or the threshold at which escalation is needed.
Risk aversion and habit produce cautious wording that feels defensible but gives the client no actionable instruction; the surveyor avoids committing to a diagnosis or timescale.
What to do instead
Every recommendation must state the action, who should do it, the timescale, and the trigger for referral. For monitoring, specify tell-tales or photos, intervals, and the crack width or movement that requires structural advice.
Diagnoses rising damp from a high moisture reading alone, without moisture profiling across the wall, salt analysis, or excluding condensation, plumbing leaks and external defects.
Pattern matching to a familiar label and reliance on a single meter reading; vendor narratives about 'rising damp' are accepted without testing alternative mechanisms.
What to do instead
Apply a damp diagnostic sequence: external defect survey, internal moisture profile, salt and hygroscopic checks, plumbing isolation, ventilation and condensation assessment. State the evidence for and against each mechanism before concluding.
Specifies a repair method before establishing the cause, for example recommending resin injection for a cracked wall or rendering over a defective plinth without a diagnosis.
Clients and agents press for a solution and cost; typical details are copied from previous reports without checking whether the mechanism, movement or moisture source is the same.
What to do instead
Separate pathology from remedy. First state the mechanism, evidence, progression and significance; then set out repair options with risks, and only then recommend a specification linked to the diagnosed cause.
Uses portal sold prices as comparables without verifying tenure, sale type, condition, date or incentives, and makes no adjustments for differences.
Portal data is quick and appears authoritative; sale prices are treated as market evidence without checking whether they are open market, related-party, repossessions or new-build incentives.
What to do instead
Verify each comparable with Land Registry, the agent or auction pack; record the source and date. Apply explicit adjustments for time, location, condition, tenure and sale type, then reconcile the evidence rather than averaging it.
States a single point value without a supported range or reconciliation, and omits the basis of value, principal assumptions and any special assumptions.
Report templates and habit encourage a headline figure; the surveyor assumes the reader knows the basis of value and does not want a range that looks indecisive.
What to do instead
Follow the required basis of value and valuation reporting standards. Include the defined basis, assumptions and special assumptions, a reasoned range where appropriate, and a reconciliation explaining why the point value sits where it does.
Reports physical alterations such as a loft conversion, extension or structural opening without identifying whether planning permission, Building Regulations approval or Party Wall etc. Act 1996 notices were required and whether evidence exists.
Attention is focused on the fabric and finishes; legal and statutory compliance is treated as a conveyancing matter rather than part of the surveyor's reporting obligation.
What to do instead
Use a statutory compliance checklist for each alteration: planning, Building Regulations completion certificate, Party Wall awards, listed building or conservation consent. Report the absence of evidence as a limitation, not a conclusion that consent was unnecessary.
Recommends fabric upgrades such as loft insulation, replacement windows or airtightness works from EPC recommendations without assessing ventilation, moisture risk, thermal bridging or heritage constraints.
The EPC recommendation list is treated as a prescriptive retrofit plan; the surveyor does not check whether the measure suits the construction or could trap moisture or worsen indoor air quality.
What to do instead
Adopt a whole-dwelling approach: assess construction, ventilation, moisture and occupancy before recommending measures. Record unintended-consequence risks and specify sequencing, such as ventilation provision before airtightness.
Uses broad disclaimers such as 'no liability for hidden defects' instead of precise scope, inspection limitations and assumptions, so the report neither protects the surveyor nor informs the client.
Fear of liability and copied template clauses produce blanket exclusions; the surveyor believes wide wording is safer than a clear statement of what was and was not inspected.
What to do instead
Define the scope, the elements inspected, the access limitations, the assumptions made and the matters excluded, each with a reason. Replace generic disclaimers with specific limitations tied to the inspection actually carried out.
Accepts an instruction or gives advice outside the surveyor's competence or with an undeclared conflict of interest, without referral or written disclosure.
Commercial pressure, repeat-client relationships and the desire to be helpful lead to accepting work involving structural engineering, valuation in an unfamiliar sector, or a connection to a party in the transaction.
What to do instead
Run a competence and conflict check before accepting instructions. Record the outcome; disclose any conflict in writing and decline or refer where competence is lacking, naming the appropriate specialist in the report.