OK – now then – the Heritage House team attended a conference on the new BS:7913 Guide to the Conservation of Historic Buildings – at Somerset House recently.
At last there is a definitive document which tells all these unintelligent RICS chartered surveyors who still insist on telling clients to use a PCA registered 'timber and damp' surveyor – DON'T!!!!
The RICS need to get their lumbering and uninterested act together – I cannot believe that not one representative of RICS was at the function. This was an opportunity for every RICS chartered surveyor to learn about solid walled buildings – to get the definitive guide on “Best Practise in the Management and Treatment of Historic Buildings” It is applicable to old buildings with, or without statutory protection. In the pre-amble it is aimed at “Building owners, Surveyors, contractors...” It is all about understanding UK traditional buildings – solid walled, breathable, sometimes pre-1919.
The BS:7913 deals specifically with competence of building professionals – and defines what is an old building. It specifically details Inspections, Surveys and Defect Analysis. It goes into great detail about the competencies of surveyors, and specifically states that surveyors must be competent persons with knowledge of traditional materials, construction techniques, and decay processes.
BS:7913 – Guide to the Conservation of Historic Buildings even details the equipment needed to competently test for dampness in old buildings. It deals with breathability and suitable materials. It deals with damp diagnosis – PROPERLY. Most RICS surveyors, and nearly ALL the surveys we see, are only done using a 'damp meter' which is wholly inappropriate for measuring damp in anything but timber. If the surveyor resorts, as is usual, to recommending an unqualified goon from the Property Care Association, that surveyor is in my opinion, and that of many at the function, incompetent.
The bottom line:
It is abundantly clear that there is ample information and training available to any RICS chartered surveyor to be able to learn how to survey an old building WITHOUT having to resort to recommending an untrained, unqualified chemical sales monkey from the Property Care Association. He may well be from Peter Cox damp proofing or Kenwood PLC. If an RICS chartered surveyor recommends a PCA survey, that RICS chartered surveyor is negligent – they are NOT using their brain, they are not properly diagnosing any problems – they are passing the buck to unintelligent, unqualified yobbos. This is disgusting and untenable behaviour.
This supposedly very highly qualified RICS Chartered surveyor – in whom the public put their largely misplaced trust, knows so little about old buildings that he has to use an external bunch of confidence tricksters waving phoney qualifications to do his work in surveying and diagnosing damp problems.
RICS surveyors have a duty to the public to stop recommending Property Care Association surveys immediately. They need to learn how to undertake competent surveys themselves at least to BS: 79123 standard. If they cannot do this, they should not attempt to survey so much as a doll's house.
I call on the RICS to clean up their act NOW – and act like the responsible professional organisation that they so wish the public to see them as. They need to read, learn about, and adopt the Professional Best Practise guidelines in BS: 7913 and cease ANY reference to the Property Care Association.
No doubt the RICS will squeal loudly and accuse me of tarnishing their golden image – don't worry RICS – its already drowning in slimy mud – most of the public don't trust your surveys, so I'm hopefully helping regain some public confidence in you. Dozens of copies of recent incompetent surveys in which RICS surveyors recommend PCA registered timber and damp surveyors, including many which actually recommend injection damp proofing of Listed Buildings are available in our office. Injecting a Listed Building is a criminal offence – it is damaging a Listed Building. And RICS chartered surveyors are doing it day in and day out. We have reams of surveys proving it.
Instead of trying to gag anyone who dares question the status quo, why don't you just admit you are wrong RICS? Stop recommending a fraudulent, unqualified organisation of chemical salesmen, and train your surveyors to do their job properly!
