Academy Remedial Surveyors Limited

I have considered my clients adverse comments and I have reviewed the survey report I provided and the e-mail thread between us. Given it’s been almost a year since the finalization of the instruction frankly I have no recollection of any verbal conversations between us however based upon the statement I made in my report specifically “I cannot categorically confirm whether or not retro fit wall insulation is in-situ or not” I do accept the probability that there was a particular debate between us regarding this matter however, I am absolutely certain that I would not have stated that I could categorically confirm its presence, which is why there is no mention of it by e-mail, most likely I would have said that only an intrusive inspection would be able to confirm this which not only would I not undertake as it is destructive but legal written consent would need to be obtained from the Vendor prior to it, it could be that the latter was not preferred due to the clients stated haste to proceed to completion of the purchase. In regard to the client stating that insulation has been found based upon me finding no evidence of (filled) drill holes anywhere which is the only practical way to install it I am astounded to read it has reportedly been found, the exterior design of the property being part brick and part render is such that it would be almost impossible to conceal these, I have researched to ascertain if there is another way of installing it and can find no alternative.

I have to report that whilst everybody has an opinion this testimonial is totally unjust and does not reflect the true events. In addition, this client lodged a formal complaint against me with the Property Care Association (PCA) who are our regulatory industry body, I have delayed posting my reply until the conclusion of their stringent investigation after considering all the facts and testimony. THEY CONCLUDED I HAD NO CASE TO ANSWER AND MY ACTIONS, PROCEDURES AND REPORTING WERE ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR CODE OF PRACTICE. When possible part of my surveying procedures includes a debate with my clients to establish all relevant information appertaining to the problem akin to a Doctor and patient. This was partly achieved on this project but not fully, a very short time after I arrived the client had to participate on a video meeting and told me to close the door after me thus no more debate, further debate would have resulted in my knowing that a water repellent had previously been applied. With that subsequent knowledge and type of product I informed her that I had sent a technical enquiry to the manufacturer to determine its efficiency and stated we will work through everything to enable a resolve. Immediately after I received an e-mail dismissing me from my services and unbelievably and offensively stating I had "ripped her off" and demanding a refund of the fee charged albeit less minimal travel expenses.