Rateable value query

ciano125

lincroft1710 wrote: »

So as you are an agent your advice is obviously going to be use an agent whatever the circumstances.

Actually if I was still in the VOA, I would be agreeing with you although my viewpoint would not be unbiased.

I was simply trying to point out that it isn't necessarily un-moneysaving to use a reputable agent. As I have shown, it need not cost anything but could save a lot of money. Ultimately I'm trying to stop people being screwed over.

Unbiased? I'm certainly not going to suggest that you wouldn't be, however there are a lot of "defenders of the list" in the VO nowadays who simply won't accept that the valuation is incorrect. These people are extremely difficult to deal with and I certainly wouldn't want to without having an expert on my side.

I do enjoy a good argument with the VO though!!

lincroft1710

however there are a lot of "defenders of the list" in the VO

Because that's what they're paid to do, so far into the 2005 VL the mindset will be "it is now so well established......" The concept of "Right First Time" valuations was an indoctrination process which clearly worked on some of the more impressionable VOA staff. The rest of us bought the idea for a whole 90 seconds.

ciano125

lincroft1710 wrote: »

however there are a lot of "defenders of the list" in the VO

Because that's what they're paid to do,

No they're not, they're paid to get it right however as you say, there are too many impressionable box tickers who don't know how to value and just get told "this is right because I say its right" by more senior staff. How can you have a reasoned discussion with someone who can't reason?!

Do you think we've hijacked this tread by the way?? :rotfl:

lincroft1710

Agreed, they should be getting it right, but the key words were "Defence of the List" (I think there was a computer application with that title). I wouldn't go so far as to say that giving a reduction was tantamount to a mortal sin or if you gave one, hara-kiri was the honourable option, but some of my colleagues got that impression.

We have probably strayed a little from the original topic.