When Home Survey Reports Scare Buyers

A colleague recently shared an example of a home survey that I think is a good example of why the Home Survey Standard needs to be reviewed.

A friend of theirs had commissioned a Level 2 Home Survey on a five-year-old house. The report ran to sixty pages, packed with alarming recommendations. By the end, the buyer was so shaken that they were ready to pull out of the purchase altogether. This is not an uncommon occurrence. I am in a first-time buyers group, and there isn't a day that goes by without a buyer being terrified of what their home survey reports, unfortunately, often out of context and without any conversations with the client.

A few examples stood out:

A small ceiling stain led to a recommendation for full removal and replacement of plasterboard ceilings.
A timber spar used to fix an extract fan was labelled an unauthorised structural alteration needing a structural engineer’s inspection.
Some timber offcuts stored on garage joists were also classed as a “structural alteration”.
A level-access front door threshold (installed to comply with Building Regulations) was criticised – the surveyor suggested removing it and adding a step.
A tiny piece of gravel in an airbrick was said to justify installing additional ventilation due to “risk of timber decay”.

This wasn’t proportionate reporting.

Why does this matter?

The purpose of a Level 2 survey is clear: to give a buyer a balanced, evidence-based understanding of a property’s condition. The 2020 Home Survey Standard (HSS) emphasises that reports should be:

Written in plain English
Proportionate to the issue and the property’s age/type
Clear about whether something is a genuine defect, normal maintenance, or a safety risk
Designed to help the client make an informed decision

When recommendations are excessive, unsupported, or technically inaccurate, the report risks doing the opposite - frightening clients away unnecessarily.

Why this report “complies” now – but wouldn’t in future

Under the current (2020) Home Survey Standard, the focus is on:

Following the prescribed template (sections A–N).
Applying condition ratings (1, 2, 3, NI).
Setting out limitations and assumptions.
Advising on risks, legal issues, and further investigations.

The report my colleague saw did all of this. On paper, it complies with the minimum 2020 HSS requirements - even though the tone and recommendations were disproportionate. The current wording allows for surveyors to be overly defensive or alarmist without technically breaching the standard.

But the proposed HSS revisions raise the bar. They expect:

Proportionality and context - not every defect merits a worst-case scenario.
Evidence and reasoning - surveyors must justify why something is “inadequate.”
Accessibility and inclusion - reports shouldn’t undermine level thresholds or modern standards.
Professional judgement - moving away from blanket referrals to specialists.

By those measures, this report would not comply.

Replacing ceilings for a minor stain isn’t proportionate.
Calling a timber spar or stored offcuts “structural alterations” isn’t evidence-based.
Recommending the removal of a level threshold undermines accessibility.
Vague opinions about “inadequate drainage” fail the clarity and justification test.

Could a client complain?

Yes. If a survey causes unnecessary alarm, contains disproportionate recommendations, or is not in line with the HSS, a client can:

Complain to the surveying firm using their Complaints Handling Procedure.
Escalate to redress (e.g. CEDR, Property Ombudsman) if unresolved.
Raise with RICS Regulation if professional standards appear to be breached.

In practice, if challenged, most firms are likely to refund the fee, and the client gets advice elsewhere. This does not help surveyors' cause or reputation, as these instances are unlikely to be reported as complaints but expressions of dissatisfaction.

What could RICS do to support surveyors and clients?

Cases like this show why the current Home Survey Standard (HSS) review is so important. Most surveyors want to do the right thing for their clients - but we also need clear frameworks, practical guidance, and confidence that our professional judgement is backed up.

Some constructive steps could include:

Strengthening compliance checks so reports are assessed on proportionality and clarity, not just whether the template is complete.
Issuing updated guidance or practice alerts to remind surveyors how to balance caution with context, particularly in newer homes where excessive recommendations can be misleading.
Providing more CPD and training on communication, consumer clarity, and accessibility, not just technical defects.
Supporting firms with review processes - for example, encouraging peer review or mentoring to improve consistency and avoid both over- and under-reporting.
Being transparent about outcomes of complaint investigations, so surveyors learn from examples and consumers feel confident in the system.

The new HSS proposals already move us in this direction. If supported with clear guidance and education, they can help surveyors feel less exposed, clients feel better informed, and the profession as a whole build greater trust.

A lesson for all of us

Surveying is about judgement. We must strike a balance between caution and context, and risk management and proportionate advice. Because reports that exaggerate or overstate can do just as much harm as those that underplay defects.

Clients deserve better. And as a profession, so do we.

Enjoy this article? You might also like this article on

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.