Undervaluation

Thrugelmir

gem2201 wrote: »

The Surveyors are scared that they will be sued by mortgage companies if something happens.

Surveyors act on behalf of the lenders under the instructions they are given. They aren't accountable to either the vendor or purchaser for the basis of their decision. .

kingstreet

gem2201 wrote: »

I have to say we are in the same boat we had 3 estate agents value our house at £350000, £360000 and £370000 we put it on the market at £365000 and accepted an offer of £355000... Surveyor comes along and values at £330000 so no I don't agree that the house prices are falling. The Surveyors are scared that they will be sued by mortgage companies if something happens.

It's not fair and it should NOt be allowed.

Surveyors are professionally qualified, have an approach to valuing based on reasonable principles and back that up with professional indemnity cover.

Is it possible the estate agents overvalued to try to get the business? You also marketed closer to the top of the three valuations, so it's possible their approach worked.

I'm just guessing here. No real way of knowing.

dunstonh

gem2201 wrote: »

I have to say we are in the same boat we had 3 estate agents value our house at £350000, £360000 and £370000 we put it on the market at £365000 and accepted an offer of £355000... Surveyor comes along and values at £330000 so no I don't agree that the house prices are falling. The Surveyors are scared that they will be sued by mortgage companies if something happens.

It's not fair and it should NOt be allowed.

That seems about right in valuation terms.

Estate agents typically add around 15% to the likely value as they know they will get knocked down.

You were lucky to get an offer that barely took anything off. However, that doesnt mean the surveyor was wrong in the valuation. It just meant the person buying was paying over the odds.

£330k is only just over 10% of the estate agent price. So, well within what you would expect a surveyor to value it at.

Thrugelmir

dunstonh wrote: »

£330k is only just over 10% of the estate agent price. So, well within what you would expect a surveyor to value it at.

Or 7.5% under the offer price. Which is a far less emotive way of looking at the situation than stating it as £25k.

bridget180282

dunstonh wrote: »

That seems about right in valuation terms.

Estate agents typically add around 15% to the likely value as they know they will get knocked down.

You were lucky to get an offer that barely took anything off. However, that doesnt mean the surveyor was wrong in the valuation. It just meant the person buying was paying over the odds.

£330k is only just over 10% of the estate agent price. So, well within what you would expect a surveyor to value it at.

Do Estate agents really over value property by 15%?? This Forum is been a real eye opener for me!

evansmummy

I've been in exactly the same boat. Undervalued by 20k. Understandably the buyers have questioned it, as I guess I would be wanted to offer my 15k under the original offer price.
Now we've lost our buyer and our chain is up the swanny. All because of a valuer who doesn't know the area and has used online house price websites to compare my house to another.
Again banks using their clout to stop the housing market

MrsMoo2U

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Surveyors act on behalf of the lenders under the instructions they are given. They aren't accountable to either the vendor or purchaser for the basis of their decision. .

yes this is what I was told when I was buying my property. One of 6 apartments in a block (new) and mine was down valued by 15K! All of the other properties were valued by different surveyors for different mortgage companies and not one was down valued. When I queried it I was told that the surveyor was valuing for the mortgage company not me. I was signed into a contract and had no choice but to continue with the sale or be sued, leaving me having to find the excess elsewhere.

kingstreet wrote: »

Surveyors are professionally qualified, have an approach to valuing based on reasonable principles and back that up with professional indemnity cover.

Is it possible the estate agents overvalued to try to get the business? You also marketed closer to the top of the three valuations, so it's possible their approach worked.

I'm just guessing here. No real way of knowing.

See note above. I was told that surveyors work for the mortgage company and to the mortgage companies guidelines. I was even told by a surveyor in the same company that he would have valued it higher but couldnt because of the guidelines

evansmummy wrote: »

I've been in exactly the same boat. Undervalued by 20k. Understandably the buyers have questioned it, as I guess I would be wanted to offer my 15k under the original offer price.
Now we've lost our buyer and our chain is up the swanny. All because of a valuer who doesn't know the area and has used online house price websites to compare my house to another.
Again banks using their clout to stop the housing market

Yep mine was valued by a surveyor from over 100 miles away, granted they had a jolly day out to the seaside to look at it but then used online house prices for "comparable" flats that had sold in the area. The comparable flats that they used were conversions/no lifts/none of latest building regulations and they said that was ok.

WellKnownSid

Yep mine was valued by a surveyor from over 100 miles away, granted they had a jolly day out to the seaside to look at it but then used online house prices for "comparable" flats that had sold in the area. The comparable flats that they used were conversions/no lifts/none of latest building regulations and they said that was ok.

The guidelines will vary by lender, but "new" and "flat" don't sit well with most lenders.

The surveyor will generally be asked to put a second-hand price on the flat, because if/when it gets repossessed then that's all it'll sell for, if it sells at all especially as new-builds are always overpriced.

Having bought (and lost) buying new builds in the past, the rule is never to sign a contract without a mortgage break-clause in place, or simply don't sign.

antrobus

la_Revolution wrote: »

.....

It has been suggested to me that valuers are requested to under value properties to ensure that their investment (i mean the loan) is more than secure.

....

It is again the ordinary hard working citizen who has to pay for the losses made by greed of the banks and lending institutions.

...

Had the 'banks and lending institutions' been a little more diligent in ensuring that their 'investment' was 'more than secure' in the recent past, then they wouldn't have made the losses in the first place.

rndb

I think some of you are missing the point. In a couple of the examples above both sellers had SOLD their respective properties and then it was down valued by the surveyor. It wasn't downvalued on the basis of the estate agents valuation but on the sold price. Surely is worth what someone is willing to pay for it, especially given that the figures quoted are still below the estate agents valuation? The suveyor should take into account the price it was sold at, in addition to everything else.