b'THE PROPERTY OMBUDSMAN ANNUAL REPORT 2019Each case is different, but all cases are To read the summaries in full, please click the link reviewed against the obligations set out in the under each case or visit: relevant Code of Practice and the extent to which there has been consumer detriment. The real- https://www.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press-life consumer case summaries in this sectionreleases/case-studiesprovide a snapshot of the varied and complex cases that TPO deals with on a daily basis. PROXIMITY PROBLEMS INSOMETHING IN THE PROPERTY SEARCH WOODWORK? A case that The Property Ombudsman was asked toA case that The Property Ombudsman was asked to review came from buyers concerning the accuracy of thereview came from a buyer concerning the survey. information within the local authority search compiled byThe buyer said that the surveyor failed to notify her of the search provider (SP). the presence of woodworm (active or not).She said that The buyers said that the search contained inaccurate andthe survey report did not mention evidence of woodworm misleading information about the proximity of a scientificin the kitchen or hall floorings even though those research centre.They calculated that the site was 104areas were not carpeted at the time of the survey. She metres away from the property and explained that theyexplained that if she had been alerted to this, she could were unaware of the proposal to build the researchhave had any necessary treatment carried out before centre until after they had purchased the property. moving into the property. Instead, this had to be done The buyers explained that they made their decision toafter, requiring her to vacate the property for three days.purchase the off-plan property based on the informationThe surveyor said that at the initial inspection, the timber contained within the SPs search report. They believedfloor was exposed in the hall and kitchen and appeared that the construction of the research centre had a directgenerally free of defect. There was damp staining in impact on the value of the property and were seekingthe kitchen and the area was tested with a damp meter compensation from the SP for omitting to include thewhich showed the area was dry. In the absence of any planning application in the search. They calculated theirfurther visible defect, they concluded that there was no losses, in respect of the impact of the site on propertysignificant problem to the floor. prices, to be around 40,000. The surveyor commented on treatment carried out on The SP did not dispute that the planning applicationbehalf of the buyer by a woodworm specialist company.in question was not included in the search, despiteThey thought that there was a lack of evidence from the site being located within the 500-metre searchthe contractors inspection as the photographs of radius. However, they said that they could not be heldfloorboards showed visible holes on the underside of responsible for this omission as they obtain their datathe floorboards only. They said these would not have from a third-party provider, who record the location ofbeen noticeable without the floor being lifted, something planning applications using grid references listed in thethe survey report clearly stated would not be done. In planning application forms which are submitted to theaddition, the work was carried nine months after their local authority.inspection, and they said that conditions could have Read more on this case and the outcome here: changed during this time.www.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press- Read the Ombudsmans findings and outcome here: releases/case-studies/item/proximity- www.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press-problems-in-property-search releases/case-studies/item/something-in-the-woodwork13'