Our Mortgage Providers Wont Let Us See Survey?!?!?

Alan_M_2

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Borrowers can NEVER rely on a survey, for litigation purposes, unless it is undertaken on their behalf - a basic lenders' valuation is therefore no use for this purpose at all even if a copy is provided.

I asked a good friend of mine to clarify this, He's a Chartered Surveyor and mortgage valuer.

They could use the survey as evidence in litigation of negligence, in so much as the surveyor could have grossly mis valued the property (in either direction) in which case his professional indemnity insurance would come into play.

This happens commonly during a crash but infrequently during periods of stability or growth. During the last crash my friend had in excess of 20 claims against his PI insurance where lenders were trying to claim that the surveyor had overvalued the property in order for the buyer to obtain a mortgage. This crops up during repossession.

Theres no reason why it couldn't work the other way around, however it would be highly unusual for an individual to litigate on this point as the cost of litigation would outweigh any possible benefit of doing so.

CHR15

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

the lender requires you to pay them a fee which they happen to term a valuation fee. Whether they use that money to undertake a valuation or to spend on other administrative services is frankly irrelevant.

Surely to all that is Holy a Mortgage lender can't go around asking for £300 and not explain what it is for??

What if they dont use it for a valuation, or any administritive services? what happens then, someone just pockets it??

Hardly a good business acumen to ask me for £300 without any direction on what it is for! does nobody check the books??

William_H

The reason I have doubts is because the valuation of my property came in at precisely what I paid for the property. Coincidence? I think not. It makes sense to me, as I said above - the value of the property is what someone is prepared to pay for it.

My friend, however, got refused a loan on a property because the valuation said that it was a single skinned wall. So they went to another provider and had no trouble. So, horses for courses.

Having thought about things a little more, it seems reasonable that the provider would need insurance, and this is what you're paying for. I'm sure they don't simply pocket the cash as Alan M's friend's opinion would back up. I was of the belief that a survey has no litigation value whatsoever (I think I signed something saying so, even though I paid the £600 for the full Monty). I'm starting to come round to the opinion that £300 quid's not a bad price. But I'd prefer more info from an independant source.

I unfortunately have a deep distrust of banks. For they still have my down payment in their pocket, and so as long as the real value is what I'm borrowing minus my down payment (or somewhere in between), why would they care? If they sold the property, they would still make a profit. That is why I think the bank's valuation is not worth much, as as far as I know it's not independent. Therefore, I got my own.

Is there not someone in da house who can clear this up once and for all?

MarkyMarkD

Alan_M wrote: »

I asked a good friend of mine to clarify this, He's a Chartered Surveyor and mortgage valuer.

They could use the survey as evidence in litigation of negligence, in so much as the surveyor could have grossly mis valued the property (in either direction) in which case his professional indemnity insurance would come into play.

This happens commonly during a crash but infrequently during periods of stability or growth. During the last crash my friend had in excess of 20 claims against his PI insurance where lenders were trying to claim that the surveyor had overvalued the property in order for the buyer to obtain a mortgage. This crops up during repossession.

Theres no reason why it couldn't work the other way around, however it would be highly unusual for an individual to litigate on this point as the cost of litigation would outweigh any possible benefit of doing so.

Either your friend is wrong or you are misinterpreting his comments.

In the circumstances we are describing, the only contractual relationships are between the lender and the borrower, and between the lender and the valuer.

There is NO contractual relationship between the borrower and the valuer and that is why there is no basis for any legal claim by the borrower.

As you say, it is/was common for LENDERS to sue the valuers - that was fair enough as they had a contract. It is/was NOT common for the borrowers to sue the valuers, because they didn't have the contractual relationship.

MarkyMarkD

Alan_M wrote: »

This I disagree with, charging a fee for a service that wasn't undertaken is very sticky legally, tantamount to obtaining money by deception.

By agreeing to pay for a valuation or survey you are paying for an independent (even this is subjective) opinion of the value/condition of the property, you are quite within your rights to request a copy of the results of this investigation for which you paid.

The lender is merely passing on the cost of this external service. To suggest it's an in house service or even irrelevant it clearly wrong not only morally but I would suggest legally also.

Your opinion is fine, but legally you are not correct. It is not "sticky legally" to say

In order to obtain this mortgage you are required to pay us a valuation fee of £350. This fee covers the cost of undertaking a valuation, whether by visiting the property or by automated means. You will not be provided with a copy of this valuation.

It's just a fee.

You are only entitled to a copy of a valuation if the terms under which you PAID for that valuation stated that you would be provided with a copy of it.

MarkyMarkD

CHR15 wrote: »

Surely to all that is Holy a Mortgage lender can't go around asking for £300 and not explain what it is for??

What if they dont use it for a valuation, or any administritive services? what happens then, someone just pockets it??

Hardly a good business acumen to ask me for £300 without any direction on what it is for! does nobody check the books??

It's just a fee. Some or all of it might be used to pay for an external valuation. Some or all of it might be used for administration. Some or all of it is probably used to subsidise what would otherwise be a loss-making mortgage given the rates charged on most mortgage products.

The money doesn't just disappear. It's accounted for and comes into the overall calculation of a mortgage account's profitability (or otherwise).