Gee Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 ECS I appreciate you work for a claims management company, but assume from your various responses that professional negligence is not your specialist subject! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eliteclaimsservices Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 ECS I appreciate you work for a claims management company, but assume from your various responses that professional negligence is not your specialist subject! >> i deal with PI, PPI and SN so it is part and parcel of my daily work. 96% success rate to date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eliteclaimsservices Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 ECS I appreciate you work for a claims management company, but assume from your various responses that professional negligence is not your specialist subject! >> it might be helpful to other members of this forum, if you were to address my questions put to you in my earlier email of yesterday's date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gee Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 Ecs The reason I did not bother to reply, is that I gave a reasoned and logical argument as to why the Scullion case made no difference to the existing Liability for negligent surveys/valuations and that this case would not therefore increase the number of claims and that the surveying profession was not therefore in a Tiz.. You appeared to avoid answering these points and where you did, the answers were generally irrelevant or incomprehensible. From this and your previous posts, I formed the opinion that you did not know very much about the property world and professional negligence for surveyors. I will give you a second chance to substantiate your claims with a simple question:- Does a buy to let purchaser or lender have any additional rights post Scullion than they had before? Please answer a simple yes or no. If yes please, state clearly what these rights are and their effect and how does this increase the surveyors liability? If you can give a justifiable answer I will willingly concede the point. Finally,I do not want to sidetrack you from the above question but I smiled to myself when I saw that you had a 96% success rate. To put this in perspective, a surveyor would probably be dismissed if he had a success rate of 99.9% 2 years in a row, as being too negligent- and we do not get to cherry pick the cases! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstraNeg Posted June 15, 2011 Report Share Posted June 15, 2011 Surveyors may have valued with confidence prior to 2008, but that was a reflection of the lenders being so keen to lend and buyers afraid of missing out by not moving fast. >> with respect, this is not true! Now the market is very different, lenders are reluctant to lend so the 'stabilising' is already in place. Let the market find it's natural state, then I would hope for some legislative controls (hopefully intelligent for a change) to prevent crazy lending practices. >> are you suggesting that parliament legislate against the free market, by introducing credit union control? The demand of the available supply, without ridiculously easy ways to borrow money, will be enough to regulate the future markets. Let surveyors do their job without the fear of compensation seeking litigation. >> if the surveyors did their job, there would no need to compensate now. I am sure there are agents, lawyers, self serving hot shots will be eager to help the 'poor abused', that don't yet realise they have been abused till one of the aforementioned tells 'em they have been. They should stick to following ambulances. >> The recent High Court ruling is not with you on this element, it held the surveyor owed a clear duty of care, of which was breached, therefore causing the purchaser to suffer a loss. In law, this is all that is needed to establish a level of quantum due and owing (money). I am a bit bemused as to why you refer lawyers that follow the law as "ambulance chasers", when we are simply applying the law as it stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstraNeg Posted June 15, 2011 Report Share Posted June 15, 2011 Over-valuations by Surveyors If you have purchased a property and you believe that it was overvalued there is something that you can do: You can sue the surveyor for professional negligence. We offer a totally free service to our clients. We assess your situation to decide whether you can realistically sue; we organise an expert witness report and we progress cases to litigation via our solicitors. At no stage do you pay anything and you take no risk. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. www.surveyors-negligence-claims.co.uk Email me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melboy Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 ..........and there was me thinking this forum was a Landlord's forum and not a property discussion forum. Mel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eliteclaimsservices Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eliteclaimsservices Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 Ecs The reason I did not bother to reply, is that I gave a reasoned and logical argument as to why the Scullion case made no difference to the existing Liability for negligent surveys/valuations and that this case would not therefore increase the number of claims and that the surveying profession was not therefore in a Tiz.. You appeared to avoid answering these points and where you did, the answers were generally irrelevant or incomprehensible. From this and your previous posts, I formed the opinion that you did not know very much about the property world and professional negligence for surveyors. I will give you a second chance to substantiate your claims with a simple question:- Does a buy to let purchaser or lender have any additional rights post Scullion than they had before? Please answer a simple yes or no. If yes please, state clearly what these rights are and their effect and how does this increase the surveyors liability? If you can give a justifiable answer I will willingly concede the point. >> GeeWiz, can i suggest you read the Judgment in this matter, when you have done so, you will then be very aware of the additional rights and or burdens. Finally,I do not want to sidetrack you from the above question but I smiled to myself when I saw that you had a 96% success rate. To put this in perspective, a surveyor would probably be dismissed if he had a success rate of 99.9% 2 years in a row, as being too negligent- and we do not get to cherry pick the cases! >> i cannot comment, but it is clear, you are refering to both "chalk and cheese" here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gee Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 Well ECS, I take that as a definite no then. There is an old experession, 'When in a hole....' Mel, I take your point, although I think the discussion has hopefully alerted other members of the Forum as to spurious claims of the ambulance chasers! The thread is finished as far as I am concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eliteclaimsservices Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 Well ECS, I take that as a definite no then. There is an old experession, 'When in a hole....' Mel, I take your point, although I think the discussion has hopefully alerted other members of the Forum as to spurious claims of the ambulance chasers! The thread is finished as far as I am concerned. Geewiz, which firm of surveyors might i ask that you work for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melboy Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 Mel, I take your point, although I think the discussion has hopefully alerted other members of the Forum as to spurious claims of the ambulance chasers! Don't get me wrong I eat breathe and live property as many people will tell you but I don't see our forum as a free advertising site for companies and persons pushing their own private agenda without contributing to the general discussions we all have on here. I guess I just don't like the "SUE" mentality that is around these days.....and there is no such thing as "Free" either. Mel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carryon Regardless Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 I would have responded to raised points earlier but my priorities took me to a beach in the Caribbean. Please don't tell my T's it would only naff' em off. The way I see it this discussion was going off track anyway and any relative points and opinions have been made by more than just me since. There wasn't going to be an acceptance of views by either side so further 'discussion' would be pointless. I guess the moderator/s have choice as to allowing for business promotion here, but I do hope there are limits as a good few of us are here due to spamming destroying our previous haunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eliteclaimsservices Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 I read with interest everybodies opinion on this matter, I will not comment further, save to say, that I believe Scullion is appealing in the SC. The following are a snip of objectors to the CA ruling: Nicholas Davidson QC Patrick Lawrence QC Mark Simpson QC Michael Pooles QC Katy Manley PNLA Simon Monty QC Not least for reason that Smith-v-Bush now contradicts the decision in relation to the liability of the surveyor to the borrower, most say, the status quo is bad law! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.