Inspection - Level 3

Question 1

Explain a factor identified during an inspection which impacted upon value?

Answer 1

When inspecting an office value significant features would includes
- Raised Floors
- Air conditioning
- Location
- Access

When inspecting a Shop value significant features would includes
- location
- Footfalls
- covenants (qaulity of tenant)

When inspecting an Shop value significant features would includes
- Access to motorway
- Contamination
- Distance to motorways

Question 2

Kings Cross - How did you determine the walls separating the Workshop were non-structural?

Answer 2

The wall was hollow and dense sound which suggests a partitional wall

Question 3

Kings Cross - What impact did then being non structural walls have on rating?

Answer 3

Zoning through to the solid wall in terms of Zone A rate.

Question 4

Talk me through you inspection in Kings Cross

Answer 4

• I carried out a joint inspection of a shop in kings cross with an agent for rating purposes
• The agent included a workshop room as a separate entry in their valuation
• Upon inspection I identified that the workshop was separated by non-structural walls.
• I therefore advised the agent that it should be included within the zoned area. After significant negotiations the agent accepted my approach and withdrew the challenge

Question 5

What order did you inspect?

Answer 5

• Local area
• External
• Internal

Question 6

What is zoning?

Answer 6

Zoning is the method used to measure retail units to compare there
values

Question 7

Kings Cross - What was your advice tot he client?

Answer 7

I advised the client during the inspection that as the wall was non-structural we must zone through it and therefore

Question 8

Kings Cross - What was the construction of the property

Question 9

Edmonton - talk through your inspection of the industrial property in Edmonton?

Answer 9

• I inspected an industrial property in Edmonton nor non-domestic rating purposes
• Prior to my inspection, I called the occupier to ensure I have full access to the property. I also confirmed if any PPE would be required as it was an active industrial site
• I compiled with my companies Lone working Policy and ensured I have my safety device with me
• The agent was seeking an allowance for poor access due to there being only one entrance/exit, and an allowance for fragmentation
• Having inspected the property I advised my client that the allowance for access should be accepted due to the nature
• I further advised that a fragmentation allowance was not warranted the wall did not completely divide the building
• It was a partitional wall and not structural

Question 10

Edmonton - What did you note during the inspection with regards to access?

Answer 10

• I noted the access route in and out
• I looked at the practicality of access to see if lorries would enter and exit.

Question 11

Edmonton - why did you then advise that the allowance should be accepted?

Answer 11

o Given the fact that there was only one entrance and exit which only had space for single traffic
o Due to the nature of this property the likelihood that there would be heavy good vehicles would be required and insufficient space for large vehicles to manoeuvre

Question 12

Edmonton - what allowance did you give the access?

Answer 12

10%

Question 13

Edmonton - What allowance did they want for fragmententation?

Answer 13

5%

Question 14

Edmonton - Please explain what you meant by fragmented allowance?

Answer 14

The appeallnt was seeking a 5% allowance due to the warehouse being split into two sections by a dividing wall. The agent was saying an allowance should be given for the disability of of the dividing wall.

Question 15

Edmonton - Why did you not give them an allowance for fragmentation

Answer 15

I didn’t see this as a disability as the wall didn’t completely divide the property and it was a partitional wall and this would therefore unlikely impact upon efficiency

Question 16

Edmonton - How did you determine during the inspection that the fragmentation wasn’t warranted?

Answer 16

During my inspection i wasn’t of the opinion that the fragmentation allowance was warranted as the wall was non structural and parts were kept for storage and for running the unit.

Question 17

Edmonton - What was the construction of the property?

Answer 17

Solid brick construction with concrete frame, under a flat roof, metal windows

Question 18

Edmonton - What PPE did you bring and why?

Answer 18

• Steel capped boots
• hard hat
• high vis jacket
• Safety Device

Question 19

Edmonton - If there was a structural wall dividing the warehouse would you have given a fragmentation allowance and why?

Answer 19

If the properties had structural walls there would be a bigger impact in the efficiency and operations of running the units and therefore there would be an arguement of an allowance.

Question 20

Edmonton - What was your advice to the client?

Answer 20

During my inspection i was able to accept the 10% allowance allowance for access due tot he disability

Question 21

Edmonton - What would you have done if full access wasn’t granted?

Answer 21

I would have to make assumptions and rely on photographs

Question 22

Edmonton - You asked occupier about PPE, what other risks did you consider in your risk assessment?

Answer 22

o Moving vehicles,
o Heights,
o Travelling to inspection
o Deleterious materials

Question 23

What are the Steps for Risk Assessment?

Answer 23

• Identify the risk
• decide who may be harms and how
• evaluate the risk and decide on precautions
• Record findings and implement them
• advise those affected by the outcome

Question 24

Edmonton - Other than your safety device how did you comply with your company’s lone working policy

Answer 24

I ensured that my outlook was updated to where I was going, who I was meeting, what time my inspection was and there contact details.

Question 25

Edmonton - when was the property built

Answer 25

Pre 1965

Question 26

Edmonton - What was the eaves height?

Answer 26

4.20

Question 27

Residential - talk through your inspection of the residential property?

Answer 27

• I inspected a two storey house in Edmonton for IHT purposes
• I noted health and safety hazards such as rat droppings which suggested a possible rat infestation and defects such as penetrating Damp
• I took photographs of the defects which also showed the general condition of the property.
• I consulted a senior surveyor who helped advise me as this was out of my expertise
• I advised HMRC on my opinion of value based off comparable evidence of similar qaulity in the locality

Question 28

How did you know it was penetrating damp?

Answer 28

it was coming from the ceiling and yellow and brown stains

Question 29

What were your thoughts on what was causing the penetrating damp?

Answer 29

Defective rood, brickwork, guttering

Question 30

Residential - Why did you consult a senior surveyor, was our of you expertise

Answer 30

As a graduate surveyor, I was aware of my limitations due to expeirence and I ensured that my valuation would reflect that.

Question 31

Residential - What was the age and construction

Answer 31

The property was a 4 bedroom, 2 storey, mid terraced house. Solid brick construction, pitched roof and fully double glazed windows

Question 32

Residential - how did you factor the penetrating damp in your valuation?

Answer 32

When comparing the property its comparables i made necessary adjustments to reflect the condition of the subject and adjust by looking at the costs to sort the issues.