Running for cover

Here's aN idea. It is now time for the RICS to put up its annual membership subscription. It's my idea. The following story will show you why it is not, perhaps, as daft as it looks.

Young John Babb, married, two kids, £20,000 a year, is a fully-qualified chartered surveyor, and a fellow of the RICS. He has got trouble. It arose when his employer, Plymouth chartered surveyor Clive Walker & Associates, was commissioned to do a valuation report on a house in Falmouth. But Babb boobed. He missed some iffy cracks in the structure of the old terrace house. Instead of Babb's valuation of £47,500, the cracks dropped the value to £33,000. The new owners, Miss Merrett and her old mum, complained about paying over the odds for the house.

They had called for a mortgage valuation report from Bradford & Bingley, Clive Walker & Associates had been appointed, but, as far as they were concerned, it hadn't done the job properly.

Who to sue? Clive Walker's outfit had gone bankrupt and all 20 branches had closed. In other words, there was no point in suing the owner unless, of course, it had an insurance policy on the back burner. It did, or rather, it once did: the receiver had cancelled it. So what did the aggrieved homeowners do then? They spotted that John Babb FRICS had signed the valuation report. He was sued.

Now hold on a minute. Young Babb is merely an employee of the firm. What's more, he had no personal insurance for such claims of negligence. Babb was fed up. He expected the 20-branch firm to cover him. Let's get legal. I warn you that this bit is tricky. If you buy socks from Marks & Spencer, that is a contract. If the socks are defective, that's probably a breach; you can then seek a remedy from M&S under the contract. You rely on the express and implied promises in the contract. But if by then, heaven forbid, M&S is out of business, or for some other reason you can't sue Marks & Spencer, can you sue the sock maker? No. Or rather, not for the defects in the socks. Ordinarily, the product defect is a matter for the contracting parties only. How about suing the lady on the sock counter who sold you the duff socks? No, you haven't got a contract with her.

Whether the professional comes from a firm or local authority or wherever, it is the person as well as the firm that offers the advice

So, how did the young employee get on? He was sued outside of contract on the basis of being negligent, the judge found against him, and he was ordered to pay the Merretts £40,000.

This happened because all of us owe something called a "duty of care" to each other. Strangers must not act so carelessly to each other as to cause loss and damage to person or property. But the strict rule is that where people have chosen to contract for socks, buildings, or services, it must be left to the rules and promises in that contract to decide on a remedy.

The snag with this law is that it is heaving with exceptions. Here is one. The law relates to the duty of care owed by surveyors and valuers, who make inspections and reports on residential property, on the instruction of building societies acting on behalf of those who purchase the properties. This law plays a discrete part in what we call "a wider jurisprudence". It means a special burden is placed on professional people.

Professional people, having got fancy qualifications, are still highly respected people and trusted, too. And when Mr and Mrs Ordinary take advice from professionals, they are likely to accept the advice as sound. So, whether the professional comes from a firm or local authority or wherever, it is the person as well as the firm that offers the advice. The courts look to advice givers in their personal capacity. In short, the law imposes a duty on professionally qualified advice givers. It is, I think, a public policy decision by the highest courts to protect the people of the land.