Help!!! Suspect fraud in valuation

HugoSP

Rachman wrote:

[I still think Bob Hope's got more chance of a successful fraud claim though]

I think you're right. However to be fair I do not think she has been the victim of fraud, more like her own 'single mindedness' and incompetence on the part of the valuer/surveyor.

My point here is that despite how 'stupid' Helen has been, she or her mortgage company hired a surveyor to provide a valuation for the property. Surveyors are legally and financially responsible for errors in surveys or valuations. Hence this avenue should be explored - not because she is now in financial difficulties, (though this aspect makes the case and urgency to explore it more acute) but because the professional she hired could have given her bad advice via incompetence and/or neglegence.

Hence, even if she were flushed with money she may hae paid far too much for the property based on a defective valuation.

These are the reasons she should at least consider a claim.

Rachman_2

HugoSP wrote:

My point here is that despite how 'stupid' Helen has been, she or her mortgage company hired a surveyor to provide a valuation for the property. Surveyors are legally and financially responsible for errors in surveys or valuations. Hence this avenue should be explored - not because she is now in financial difficulties, (though this aspect makes the case and urgency to explore it more acute) but because the professional she hired could have given her bad advice via incompetence and/or neglegence.

AndI suggest that the surveyor will use the 'market' MAC (Material adverse change) out and will produce a raft of documents to evidence - whether they were negligent or not will be a view of their actions at the time, and not looking backwards - as such, I suggest in a rising market, an eager buyer...... they were not far out - and I think they will produce a raft of similar properties other people valued at the time at the same which are either in a similar position to this one - her best hope is a without responsibility contribution to avoid a prof neg claim - ask me to bet and I think they'll tell her to sod off knowing she's not go the money to sue them and with respect, does not know her way around enough to press the right buttons....

magyar

I have to agree with Rachman. Almost by definition, market value is highly variable. For example, when I bought my house, we got two figures - one for the market value (agreeing with the sale price) and one for the rebuild value, i.e. the actual bricks and mortar.

Now, if my house burned down and it turned out I was hideously underinsured because the valuer had got the rebuild value wrong, then I'd have a reasonable claim - but the market value is far more tenuous.

magyar

Incidentally, is there a record for how long a thread has been going on without the OP being in any way involved?

Rick62

If she only had the basic mortgage valuation then the valuer was working for the lender and will say that they had no legal or other responsibility to the OP.

If there was a 'higher lending charge' this benefits the lender, the OP would still be responsible for the whole of the shortfall.

real1314

magyar wrote:

Incidentally, is there a record for how long a thread has been going on without the OP being in any way involved?

Helen's last comment was at 5:02pm on friday, so maybe she hasn't got/doesn't want/doesn't use weekend access? maybe: :beer:

I'd still like an answer to my last question to her about her earnings, and maybe what line of work she's in could do with and extra £15k per annum myself. (assuming accurate typing isn't a neccessity:rotfl: ).

and if helen does look back on monday; it's not personal, we all make mistakes. (even me, loads of them!) :A

silvercar

Will the lender let her sell if there won't be sufficient money to redeem the mortgage? With a 2 year old valuation of £250k they may be reluctant to allow the property to be resold. Lenders are unliekly to commission valuations themselves and so may not see that the value of the property has actually fallen. It may be that they refuse her permission to sell and repossess.

magyar

silvercar wrote:

Will the lender let her sell if there won't be sufficient money to redeem the mortgage? With a 2 year old valuation of £250k they may be reluctant to allow the property to be resold. Lenders are unliekly to commission valuations themselves and so may not see that the value of the property has actually fallen. It may be that they refuse her permission to sell and repossess.

That's an interesting point, although I presume the view of the bank would be that they would get less than market value from a reposession, so provided the OP is able to make the current payments then I would imagine they will allow her to sell.

rjm2k1

silvercar wrote:

Will the lender let her sell if there won't be sufficient money to redeem the mortgage? With a 2 year old valuation of £250k they may be reluctant to allow the property to be resold. Lenders are unliekly to commission valuations themselves and so may not see that the value of the property has actually fallen. It may be that they refuse her permission to sell and repossess.

I think she posted that she was in arrears with the mortgage, if that's the case I guess the lender will repossess and I think it's in their power to go after the owner for the difference. If she is real, she should be glad she's not in the states, where AFAIK the IRS can go after the tax they would owe on the money they lost as they consider it as unearned income!

Tootsie_Roll

magyar wrote:

That's an interesting point, although I presume the view of the bank would be that they would get less than market value from a reposession, so provided the OP is able to make the current payments then I would imagine they will allow her to sell.

The quick answer is no they wont let her sell - they will not release the charge (giving free and clear title to the purchaser) unless they receive full payment.

Having said that I think there may be a precedent where they cannot refuse if it can be shown that the price being paid is the going market rate, e.g. house sold for £215k with £250 outstanding, lender refuses sale. 3 months later repossess and sells for same amount or less having incurred all repo charges + additional interest.