Expert Witness Journal Issue 63 October 2025 - Flipbook - Page 77
HART v LARGE – a negligent
residential surveyor.
This article refers to a court case in 2020 where a surveyor, Richard Large, was found to give
negligent advice in his survey report to a house purchaser (Mr & Mrs Large). It discusses
the background to the case and how it currently a昀昀ects surveyors carrying out surveys and
writing a report for a pre-purchase buyer.
Background
Richard Large, an experienced surveyor who was
soon to retire, was asked by Mr & Mrs Hart to carry
out a survey on a cli昀昀 top property in South Devon
that they wished to purchase. There had been
considerable work carried out on the property to
such an extent that the new property was barely
recognisable compared to the original (see photos).
The survey was carried out on 2 November 2021
and it was decided by the surveyor to carry out a
Homebuyers survey and report. This is currently
called a level 2 survey and is midway between a
level 1 (condition report) and a level 3 survey (more
detailed than a level 2 and used in more complex
buildings). It is important to note the two facts of
its exposed situation on top of a cli昀昀 in Devon and
that the house had been substantially reconstructed
as these are important parts in determining liability
and also in treating this case as relatively unique.
Above, cli昀昀 top property in South Devon before
Richard Large sent his report to the Harts the
same day as the survey and he e昀昀ectively gave
it a clean bill of health save for concern over lack
of information over the septic tank and concerns
with pipes/gutters. The house was marketed at a
value of £1.4M, Richard Large valued it at £1.2M
and this was the price that was agreed. Completion
was made on 23 November 2011 and when Mr &
Mrs Hart arrived on that day, they found workmen
carrying out repair work to the front door. Doubts
about the quality of the construction were therefore
immediately raised by Mr & Mrs Hart. Over the
next few months (and critically going into the 昀椀rst
winter that the property had encountered since the
rebuilding) water was found to be still entering
through the front door, through large glazed
elevations and through the balcony area.
Above, cli昀昀 top property in South Devon after
with being on the edge of a cli昀昀 in Devon. The cost
of the remedial works was estimated as being in
excess of £500,000. Mr & Mrs Hart decided to take
legal action against Richard Large and also their
conveyancing solicitor and the architect involved
in the rebuilding (although there was no direct
contractual link between Mr & Mrs Hart). No claim
was made against the builder. The claims against
the solicitor and the architect were mainly due to a
lack of a Professional Completion Certi昀椀cate (PCC)
being supplied by the architect to the house vendor
which would in turn have been made available to the
any prospective purchaser.
Mr & Mrs Hart took independent advice from
another surveyor who found that signi昀椀cant errors
and omissions had been made by the building
contractor who carried out the rebuilding work
and this entailed that the building was not water
tight against the signi昀椀cant amount of rain and
sea water that it should have been able to cope
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
75
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2025
