As a last action before departing for a weekend away I decide to get a surveyor lined up for a topographical survey of the site. Unless we go for the 'do nothing' option, which is highly unlikely, we'll need a site plan showing levels, the current footprint of the property, etc.
I contact a couple of surveyor, one recommended by Knott, the other taken from an internet search. The internet find quotes £400 plus VAT, the recommended one (after an impromptu site visit) £475 plus VAT for essentially the same service - plans in both Autocad and hard copy that can be used to support planning and building control applications and by the builders to dig their holes in the right place. They're both fully qualified surveyors with a track record and letters after their name.
I opt for the cheaper one and because I want to 'do things properly' email the company that I haven't selected, rather than leaving them wondering, to tell them that it was purely a cost consideration, couching it in terms of "better value".
I then get a somewhat tetchy, and probably spur of the moment, email back saying: "I do not like the term better value for the same end product as there are large descrepancies between companies . I appreciate that you have a cheaper price and may well end up with a fine job but value is not just cost derivative."
But, in this case, isn't it a cost consideration? The site plan (a purely factual, objective document reporting what is already there, as opposed to house plans which can always be improved upon) will either be fit for purpose or it won't be. It'll either be good enough for the local authority's needs, or it won't be. It'll either be good enough for the builder or it won't be. I'm not sure what the added value of paying the additional 20% here is - it won't show up in either the finished house or the sale price of the building plot, depending on whichever route we take.
Or am I missing something?
I contact a couple of surveyor, one recommended by Knott, the other taken from an internet search. The internet find quotes £400 plus VAT, the recommended one (after an impromptu site visit) £475 plus VAT for essentially the same service - plans in both Autocad and hard copy that can be used to support planning and building control applications and by the builders to dig their holes in the right place. They're both fully qualified surveyors with a track record and letters after their name.
I opt for the cheaper one and because I want to 'do things properly' email the company that I haven't selected, rather than leaving them wondering, to tell them that it was purely a cost consideration, couching it in terms of "better value".
I then get a somewhat tetchy, and probably spur of the moment, email back saying: "I do not like the term better value for the same end product as there are large descrepancies between companies . I appreciate that you have a cheaper price and may well end up with a fine job but value is not just cost derivative."
But, in this case, isn't it a cost consideration? The site plan (a purely factual, objective document reporting what is already there, as opposed to house plans which can always be improved upon) will either be fit for purpose or it won't be. It'll either be good enough for the local authority's needs, or it won't be. It'll either be good enough for the builder or it won't be. I'm not sure what the added value of paying the additional 20% here is - it won't show up in either the finished house or the sale price of the building plot, depending on whichever route we take.
Or am I missing something?
The only thing you're missing is the £75 plus a little VAT that would otherwise be going out of your account.
ReplyDeleteBetter not to have someone who is so sure of their 'value' doing you a favour by being paid to do a job. Especially if they cannot give a clear indication of what exactly their value is.