Home Surveys: Lessons from Fryer v Bunney and the Accountability Gap
Buying a home is a big expensive deal. When something goes wrong, the financial loss can be devastating, but the emotional toll is just as real. A home survey should reduce that risk. Surveyors are there to test, record, and report honestly on the condition of a property. But when survey reports are poor, when site notes are vague, or when damp meter readings aren’t properly recorded, consumers suffer and surveyors are left exposed.
This is why the RICS Home Survey Standard (HSS), currently under consultation, matters. It is the framework against which RICS regulates its members. Yet the consultation highlights a tension at the heart of our profession: consumers and surveyors expect accountability, courts demand thoroughness, but RICS is left regulating against its own minimum rules rather than the higher standards set out in case law.
Fryer v Bunney – a lesson in thoroughness
The case of Fryer v Bunney [1982] ORC still echoes in surveying practice today. The surveyor was found negligent after failing to discover considerable damp at 5 Cherry Way, Daw’s Hill, Essex.
Although his survey report stated that a Protimeter had been used, there were no records of damp meter readings for parts of the house. Expert witnesses – including a plumber, a chartered engineer, and two chartered surveyors – demonstrated that if sufficiently extensive readings had been taken, the damp would have been revealed.
Mr Justice Newey was sympathetic, making clear that this was not a case of deliberate corner-cutting. Instead, he described it as the danger of routine: a man doing a standard job too frequently, and not applying the necessary thoroughness on that day.
The lesson was, and still is, unmistakable: surveyors must not only use the right tools, but apply them methodically and record their results clearly. Good intentions are no defence if the evidence is missing and the client suffers loss.
The accountability gap
Surveyors still rely on illegible survey site notes, vague references, or borrowed photographs. When defects are later discovered, consumers complain – only to be told that the survey “complied” with the HSS.
The issue is that RICS regulation focuses on compliance with its own standard. If a survey report touches the right headings, a case may be closed with “advice” rather than discipline. To the consumer, this appears to be RICS excusing poor practice. To the surveyor, it creates false reassurance. But in court, the bar is higher. What passes under the HSS can still fail under surveyor negligence law.
Some argue that the HSS already requires adequate records and that adding more prescriptive requirements is unnecessary. But experience shows that minimum compliance is not the same as best practice, and vagueness leaves both consumers and surveyors vulnerable.
Where redress schemes fit in
When complaints aren’t resolved, many consumers turn to a redress scheme such as CEDR (the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution) or The Property Ombudsman (TPO). These services are independent and free to consumers, but they operate under scheme rules and financial caps rather than case law.
CEDR adjudicators assess fairness, consider professional standards such as the HSS or the TPO Code of Practice, and reach a decision that is binding on the firm if accepted by the consumer. Awards are capped at £25,000 and decisions are not precedent. The average subsidence claim, for example, is thought to be around £50,000. That means a consumer can “lose” at CEDR because the surveyor complied with the HSS, yet still succeed in a negligence claim in court.
We end up with three parallel systems: RICS regulation, redress schemes, and the courts – each applying different standards. No wonder consumers feel frustrated, and surveyors feel uncertain about where they stand.
Why stronger records are the answer
The common thread across all of these forums is evidence. Without photographs, clear survey site notes, and properly recorded damp meter readings, surveyors are left exposed and consumers are left without answers.
In 2025, there is no excuse for poor records or survey reports that consumers cannot understand. Digital tools make it simple to capture structured notes and photographs. And in an age where AI is regularly used to manipulate data and images, a reliable, contemporaneous record of truth has never been more important. Consumers need to be able to trust their surveyor, and surveyors need protection from unfair complaints.
Some worry that requiring more structured notes or photographs will add cost and complexity, pricing some buyers out of surveys. But the extra time is minimal compared to the protection gained. Stronger records reduce disputes, saving time, money, and reputational damage for everyone.
What the HSS consultation must deliver
The consultation is a chance to raise the bar. The Home Survey Standard should require structured, legible site notes, make photographs in reports standard practice, and require surveyors to record how and where damp and other risks were tested.
The danger, however, is trying to squeeze everything into the HSS. Being overly prescriptive is not the answer. A review of how members are regulated and how complaints are handled by RICS must run alongside the HSS review, or nothing will truly change.
Trust needs truth
Fryer v Bunney taught us decades ago that poor records cost surveyors dearly. Yet unless the HSS is strengthened and supported by a robust regulatory approach, the gap between RICS regulation, redress schemes like CEDR and TPO, and case law will continue, leaving consumers frustrated and surveyors exposed.
By embedding proper site notes, photographs, and testing records as part of the professional norm, and by aligning regulation more closely with evidential standards expected in court, RICS can give surveyors the clarity they need and consumers the confidence they deserve.
Enjoy this article? You might also like Why Surveying Needs a Fairer, Clearer, Consumer Complaint Process
Find this content useful? I’d love to hear your suggestions and recommendations. If you found this article helpful, please share it and show your support by leaving me a Google review — or you can Buy Me a Coffee. As a small business, it makes all the difference.
Next step for you: If you’re a surveyor or small surveying firm looking to strengthen your client onboarding, complaint handling, and consumer-focused services, take a look at my Love Surveying Workshops and Resources. They’re designed to help you reduce complaints, build trust, and deliver surveys that consumers actually value.
