My response is that perhaps in 99 cases in 100, a report is probably unlikely to reveal any serious shortcomings; however, I then quote a very disturbing case from my early career. The local bank manager called me to say that a new assistant manager had been appointed at his branch who was moving to the area and had agreed to buy a new house. He wanted me to undertake a survey although it was new just as a precaution and the Bank would be paying my fee as part of the relocation package. I duly attended and found the builders still on site attending to minor finishing works. The foreman was asked by the site manager to keep an eye on me, and every now and again would look over my shoulder and upon seeing a note such as “paint missing from edge of front door” immediately instructed the painters to rectify.

All was going well until I entered the garage, which was integral with the main building.

Here I discovered that the steel beam, which carried the weight of the front wall and roof over the garage, was significantly too short, having a bearing of less than 50mm upon the supporting brickwork. As an absolute minimum, this beam should have had a bearing of at least 150mm. In order to rectify this very serious deficiency is was necessary to undertake major structural repairs, providing temporary support to the structure and replacing the steel beam with a longer one. If this had not been discovered, then there would have been a serious risk of structural collapse in future years. In this case the cost of repair was the builder’s responsibility.

Yes, during the first 10 years of the building’s life, it should have been possible to recover costs under the terms of an NHBC or similar new build warranty scheme, but it is unlikely that the new house owner would have identified the defect before any damage occurred.