ChD 28 February 1992. Some of the defendants, existing borrowers of the building society (H), applied for further advances secured against property. They were required to choose one of three mortgage valuations, a basic valuation to enable the society to assess the adequacy of the security afforded, a house buyers valuation which contained a fuller report or a full structural survey. The defendants chose either the basic survey or the house buyers report. They complained to the Building Societies Ombudsman that the valuations had been prepared negligently by professional valuers employed by H. The Ombudsman did not have the power to determine the case so it passed to the high court. The declarations were refused on the grounds that a basic valuation prepared by a building society employee was an action taken by the society and if it proved to be wrong amounted to a maladministration, but a house buyers report constituted a contract between the society and the borrower and a negligent