On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:24:48 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote
(in article ews.net):



Matt, it is not commissioned by the vendor. It would be "mandatory" and the
vendor pays.

That argument is semantic. A one-size-fits-all survey package is not
appropriate for every property. it is quite individual.

A mortgage lender may well specify a set of checks to be made in order to
protect his collateral for a loan. That's his affair and of course the buyer
pays. The buyer may be happy with that as being sufficient. He is paying
for this evaluation and indeed, ultimately for the property.

I would not rely on one of these vendor funded packs because a) I didn't pay
for it, b) I didn't specify the work and c) I will make the decisions on the
information that I need in order to make an informed purchasing decision.

I neither need nor want the government to have any part in that whatsoever.
It is not their business because they are not paying.

Therefore this becomes yet another stealth tax and job creation scheme.

Quite rightly it should be buried.





Do you think a Part P inspector pulls back on the rules because
of the person paying? You probably do. I suppose you think the same about
MOT inspectors too.

These are both quite separate issues.