Dear Members,
Over recent months, we have received increasing feedback regarding developer behaviour on the site. Several themes are emerging consistently across regions. They concern access, professional standing, communication with homeowners, and control of inspection reports.
These are not isolated irritations. They go to the heart of professional independence and the integrity of the inspection process. This month’s note is intended to clarify position, gather structured feedback, and ensure we respond collectively where necessary.
Restricted Time on Site
Several members have reported being allocated limited inspection windows or being directed to complete inspections within predetermined timeframes.
A pre-completion inspection (PCI) must be conducted with sufficient time to thoroughly assess workmanship, finishes, and compliance. Artificially restricting inspection duration risks undermining both accuracy and professional duty of care.
If you have experienced:
Please report the details to me, kelly@rpsa.org.uk, including the developer’s name, region, frequency, and any written correspondence.
Professional Membership Being Questioned
There have also been reports that site personnel or developer representatives have questioned the legitimacy of RPSA membership or suggested that alternative accreditations are “preferred.”
It is important to be clear: a client-appointed surveyor operates under their own professional standards and code of conduct. No developer has the authority to determine which professional body is acceptable for a homeowner’s independently appointed inspector.
If you have encountered:
Please provide details. Patterns matter.
PCI Timing and Communication with Homeowners
We are aware of instances where developers appear to advise homeowners on whether a PCI should be undertaken or suggest that third-party inspections could affect warranties or handover processes.
For clarity:
A pre-completion inspection does not invalidate structural warranties.
A homeowner is entitled to appoint an independent professional.
Developers do not control the client’s right to independent advice.
If you are encountering recurring misinformation being communicated to clients, we need to understand the scale and wording being used.
Requests to Upload Reports to Builder Platforms
This issue is becoming increasingly common. Homeowners have reported requests to upload site reports directly to builder-controlled apps or digital portals.
The professional position is straightforward:
The report is commissioned by the client.
The report belongs to the client.
Distribution is determined by the surveyor in accordance with client instruction and professional judgement.
Uploading reports to builder systems without explicit client consent raises concerns about data control, liability exposure, and independence.
If you have experienced:
Please notify me with details. kelly@rpsa.org.uk
Why This Matters
Independent inspection relies on unrestricted access, professional autonomy, and clear boundaries. When those boundaries become blurred, both professional standards and consumer confidence are weakened.
RPSA will review the information received and assess whether formal guidance or engagement with industry stakeholders is required. However, any action must be evidence-based. Your input is essential.
Member Feedback Requested
If you have experienced any of the issues outlined above within the last 60 days, please respond with:
Responses will be treated confidentially and used solely to inform professional review and potential guidance.
Closing Note
RPSA members operate in accordance with defined standards of independence and integrity. Our role is to protect homeowners' interests through objective assessment. That position must remain clear and uncompromised.
Thank you for your continued professionalism. Your feedback allows us to respond proportionately and strategically.
Thank you in advance.
Kelly Skidmore MCIOB, MRPSA, AssocRICS
Council member
RPSA Snagging Sector Council Chair
Tel 07774 238845
Email kelly@rpsa.org.uk
