Confirmation Bias

[Atilla]

Have we considered the possibility she made the correct decision?


Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica)

1 Week per second footage here...

Plants can of course be global conquerors too, and few more so than the infamous Japanese knotweed. It is known to be able to exploit cracks in concrete and roads and even undermine building foundations. The cost of controlling it has spiralled to an estimated $3 billion dollars. And, as with any self-respecting invasive species, it’s almost impossible to kill.


Great thread.

 

[timsk]

I sympathise, Tim, but I must say that I, too, would heed the advice of a professional I had hired for the purpose. If I desperately wanted your house I might get a second opinion, otherwise I wouldn't take the risk.

Like our buyer Jon, I suspect you're suffering from cognitive bias!


The advice from the surveyor is deeply flawed for numerous reasons, not least because she made her judgement without assessing the scale or impact of the problem or spoke to the professionals dealing with it. Additionally, it negates the RICS' own published guidelines about Japanese Knotweed. But, unfortunately, this is all water off a duck's back as far as our buyer is concerned.
Tim.

 

[dbphoenix]

Thank you all for your interesting and thought provoking responses - much appreciated!

You're probably thinking, not unreasonably, that my question is prompted by novice traders here on T2W who latch on to someone because that person has a TA qualification or they've worked for an IB or have a double first in economics and Maths from Oxford - or whatever. Although my OP is pertinent to the retail trading arena, that's not what prompted it.

My wife and I are in the process of selling our house and we found the perfect buyer, or so we thought. A retiring GP - nice lady. Like any house, ours has had a few issues over the years which we duly declared on the solicitor's 'Property Information Form'. In our case, we had (note past tense) a small infestation of Japanese Knotweed. Make no mistake, it’s nasty stuff, highly invasive and needs to be dealt with carefully and professionally. This we did, so that all that remains is the plant in the attached photo. The surveyor didn’t even see it and, when it was brought to her attention, she didn’t bother to return to the property to inspect it, or bother to consult the top flight landscape management company who we got in over a year ago to eradicate it. (Proper management plan in place and everything.) She simply told her client (our buyer) that on the strength of that one little plant that it’s “impossible” to value the house and “impossible” to get a mortgage on it. Unsurprisingly, our buyer has withdrawn her offer. She seems completely blinkered by the surveyor and won’t listen to or accept anything anyone else says. For a variety of reasons I won't bore you with here, we believe the surveyor is unprofessional and incompetent but, unfortunately for us, our buyer laps up everything she says without question.

I'm not wanting or expecting anyone to comment on any of this; just thought you might be interested in the background to the OP.
Thanks again for all your posts.
Tim.

This has less to do with anything "psychological" than with an understandable reliance on and trust in certification. If your buyer had hired the friend of a friend of a casual acquaintance, she might be stupid, but not necessarily biased. But she hired someone who was certified to do her job. That implies that the surveyor was professional and competent, though she may not have been as professional or competent as someone else in the same field. One could say the same thing about a doctor or lawyer or, in your case, a landscape management company. When I sold my house in 2007, I wasn't especially impressed by the buyer's agent, who apparently said nothing to her about the state of the market, if he knew, which I doubted. She therefore paid top price just a couple of months before the market collapsed. Conversely, when I later found a house to buy, I hired several inspectors -- termites, sewer, general, etc -- to do their thing. The general inspector wasn't particularly good but on the basis of his report I was eventually able to persuade the seller to reduce his price by about 25%. The point is that the certification speaks, even though the individual or company holding it is not necessarily the best available.

A disinterested observer might conclude that the landscape management company did not do what it was contracted to do given that the plant was not eradicated. Similarly, a single termite may or may not be a concern depending on which side of the fence one is standing. Or a "bit" of dry rot. You may be correct in believing that the surveyor made something out of what you perceive to be nothing, but unless the choices are extremely limited in your market, what compelling reason would a buyer have to ignore the surveyor's opinion and choose your home rather than move on to other prospects?

Given that the business with the plant is now "out there" and cannot be concealed, your chief concern may be to make certification worship work for you and find someone who will certify that the plant is well and truly eradicated. At the very least, if it eventually turns out that that is not the case, you will be off the hook.

 

[timsk]

Have we considered the possibility she made the correct decision?

Considered and dismissed Atilla.

Unfortunately, Japanese Knotweed (JKW) is a bit like AIDS in the early days before there was public awareness about it. In the 80s, people thought you could contract AIDS just by living in the same town as someone who had it. Today, with JKW, there's a lot of scaremongering going on, usually by people who know little or nothing about it. Horticulturists and associated professionals who do know about it all sing from the same hymn sheet and say it's just a weed, albeit a highly invasive one, but it can be controlled and eradicated. Given that it can pop up anywhere at anytime (as it did with us), not buying a house because of it is just plain daft. The exception would be where it's been left to run rampant and it's got into the drains and foundations of the property etc. In our case, that hasn't happened and, when the the specialists return to treat the one small plant that remains, the JKW sage will be but a minor footnote in the house's history.
Tim.

 

[Atilla]

Considered and dismissed Atilla.

Unfortunately, Japanese Knotweed (JKW) is a bit like AIDS in the early days before there was public awareness about it. In the 80s, people thought you could contract AIDS just by living in the same town as someone who had it. Today, with JKW, there's a lot of scaremongering going on, usually by people who know little or nothing about it. Horticulturists and associated professionals who do know about it all sing from the same hymn sheet and say it's just a weed, albeit a highly invasive one, but it can be controlled and eradicated. Given that it can pop up anywhere at anytime (as it did with us), not buying a house because of it is just plain daft. The exception would be where it's been left to run rampant and it's got into the drains and foundations of the property etc. In our case, that hasn't happened and, when the the specialists return to treat the one small plant that remains, the JKW sage will be but a minor footnote in the house's history.
Tim.

Because I like you Tim (said reluctantly - cognitive bias at play here) and based on the explanation you provide, I believe you and on balance would proceed with the purchase.

Not knowing you, I would err on the side of caution and simply abort and look elsewhere. Why take the risk? Structural surveys are always a must imo.

All the best.

 

[barjon]

Like our buyer Jon, I suspect you're suffering from cognitive bias!


The advice from the surveyor is deeply flawed for numerous reasons, not least because she made her judgement without assessing the scale or impact of the problem or spoke to the professionals dealing with it. Additionally, it negates the RICS' own published guidelines about Japanese Knotweed. But, unfortunately, this is all water off a duck's back as far as our buyer is concerned.
Tim.

Tim, you're bound to say it's deeply flawed From what you have said she hasn't said anything about the physical impact of knotweed, but that the house can't be valued because it is there and a mortgage couldn't be obtained for the same reason. She might be right on both counts even if she, herself, thinks the knotweed does not represent a seriously problem. It's enough for her to conclude that buyers and mortgage companies would be scared off by its existence.

 

[timsk]

Because I like you Tim (said reluctantly - cognitive bias at play here) and based on the explanation you provide, I believe you and on balance would proceed with the purchase.

Not knowing you, I would err on the side of caution and simply abort and look elsewhere. Why take the risk? Structural surveys are always a must imo.

All the best.

I like you too Atilla.


I, like most people, agree with you completely that structural surveys are a must. Our beef with the surveyor is that she should tell the buyer whether or not she's found any defect caused by the JKW. She hasn't done that because she's not looked and she's not looked because she doesn't know what to look for - hence the accusation of incompetence. She's been caught out, is embarrassed by that and now just wants her bill paid and for our buyer to walk away. The last thing she wants is for the sale to go ahead for fear that JKW returns and our buyer then sues her. She's acting purely out of self interest and is trying to protect her own a$$.
Tim.

 

[sminicooper]

Timsk,
I do sympathise – it would seem that you have fallen foul of a risk vendors are nearly always subject to. It must seem doubly hard to you because you took all reasonable precautions to deal with this potential problem and were upfront and honest about it. In the world of house selling that is not always the case!

But to put the other side – i.e. the buyer. I found myself in a similar situation some years ago when I was advised by the professional whom I had hired (at not inconsiderable cost) that there was a potential problem with the "Title" of the property (for those not familiar with the legalities it means that you could have legal problems in establishing your ownership et cetera et cetera) and that I should be aware of this even though in the experts opinion it was not a problem that couldn't be resolved – but of course with extra (expensive) legal investigation. At this stage – fairly late on in the proceedings but still pre-contract I decided not to take the risk and pulled out. Obviously the vendor was not very chuffed but given the choice I put my own considerations 1st – especially as it was a reasonably bog standard sort of property and there would be another along soon. Had it been unique and unusually desirable I might have looked into it further. But why take the risk? And maybe that's what your buyer's thoughts were.

Trying to take an impartial viewpoint I think your buyer's expert gave the correct advice – remembering that the expert was working for the buyer and not the seller. I've bought and sold many houses over the years and the thing that's always surprised me with some "experts" is that they will pick up the most trivial things but then miss something that's really important. I suspect that's not much consolation to you in your lost sale but you were right in being honest and upfront about the problem because had you not been, it could come and bite you back legally and financially in the future just when you might have thought it was well in the past. I suspect that somebody who really wants your property will make it their business to satisfy themselves that your weed is not a problem. Good luck!

PS – just read your post above about surveyors protecting their own a$$ – that's very true but on the other hand it does make them very careful, and When acting for me as a buyer that's how I like them to be.

 

[timsk]

Tim, you're bound to say it's deeply flawed .

Guilty as charged Jon!

From what you have said she hasn't said anything about the physical impact of knotweed, but that the house can't be valued because it is there and a mortgage couldn't be obtained for the same reason. She might be right on both counts even if she, herself, thinks the knotweed does not represent a seriously problem. It's enough for her to conclude that buyers and mortgage companies would be scared off by its existence.

As per my reply to Atilla, she doesn't know anything about the physical impact of JKW , otherwise she would do what RICS guidelines recommend and just factor it in just as she would with any other structural defect or disrepair. If she'd made some attempt to do her job properly, I'd be much more willing to accept her conclusions. If we dropped the asking price by 50% (or whatever), people would be queuing around the block with their cheque books at the ready. Obviously, the house has some value, she just too incompetent to work out what it is.

With regard to mortgages, RICS are crystal clear that no mortgage company should refuse to lend on the basis of their guidelines and, at present, only the Skipton has a blanket ban on offers to lend where there's a case of JKW. Most take a pragmatic view and take into consideration the reports from specialists in the field like the ones we've engaged to tackle the problem.

On a wider note, thank you all for your responses - most enlightening. Until now, I'd been of the view that our buyer had gone soft in the head but, since some of you have said you'd do the same in her shoes, I now know for certain that she's gone soft in the head. Only joking! No, I don't bare her any ill feeling whatsoever, unlike her surveyor who, as you can probably tell from the tone of my posts, makes me a very cross timsk indeed.
Tim.

 

[counter_violent]

Guilty as charged Jon!


As per my reply to Atilla, she doesn't know anything about the physical impact of JKW , otherwise she would do what RICS guidelines recommend and just factor it in just as she would with any other structural defect or disrepair. If she'd made some attempt to do her job properly, I'd be much more willing to accept her conclusions. If we dropped the asking price by 50% (or whatever), people would be queuing around the block with their cheque books at the ready. Obviously, the house has some value, she just too incompetent to work out what it is.

With regard to mortgages, RICS are crystal clear that no mortgage company should refuse to lend on the basis of their guidelines and, at present, only the Skipton has a blanket ban on offers to lend where there's a case of JKW. Most take a pragmatic view and take into consideration the reports from specialists in the field like the ones we've engaged to tackle the problem.

On a wider note, thank you all for your responses - most enlightening. Until now, I'd been of the view that our buyer had gone soft in the head but, since some of you have said you'd do the same in her shoes, I now know for certain that she's gone soft in the head. Only joking! No, I don't bare her any ill feeling whatsoever, unlike her surveyor who, as you can probably tell from the tone of my posts, makes me a very cross timsk indeed.
Tim.

Just to cheer you up !

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07qbstb