Overvaluation of Property

AdrianC

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

In moral terms, what NatWest has done to OP is similarly scandalous

Terrible. How dare they agree to his application for a mortgage? They should be tarred and feathered!

glentoran99

http://www.proneg.co.uk/news-articles/negligent-property-overvaluation-valuer.html


Perhaps there is merit....




http://www.proneg.co.uk/valuers-negligence.html

bouicca21

Surely the question would be what harm has been caused by the valuation and how accurate can a retrospective valuation be? OP bought at fractionally over the retrospective valuation, well within tolerance levels. (S)He got a rate suitable for an 85% valuation rather than 100%, so presumably cheaper, and appears to have suffered no loss other than feeling smug about getting a bargain.

It has to be a wind up.

DandelionPatrol

bouicca21 wrote: »

Surely the question would be what harm has been caused by the valuation and how accurate can a retrospective valuation be? OP bought at fractionally over the retrospective valuation, well within tolerance levels. (S)He got a rate suitable for an 85% valuation rather than 100%, so presumably cheaper, and appears to have suffered no loss other than feeling smug about getting a bargain.

It has to be a wind up.

It is not a retrospective valuation. From the OP

I have since been able to acquire a valuation (RICS) of the said property dated AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE IN 2006,

[OP's highlighting]

hcb42

2006 was a different place to today - there is always the risk with buying new.

DandelionPatrol

AdrianC wrote: »

Terrible. How dare they agree to his application for a mortgage? They should be tarred and feathered!

What they have done is morally reprehensible. At the time of advancing £135,000 pounds they valued the purchase at £153,000 in dealings with the OP, while knowing that their own valuer valued it at £125,000.

Of course, I have no doubt that the majority of purchasers off-plan would have carried on regardless of such valuation figures if they had been informed before it was to late. Probably ironically because if they were given the information, they would not trust the banks ....

bouicca21

Well he/she says dated, not issued. Presumably it was not available to OP at the time so it raises questions about who commissioned it and when. The bank stated they did not carry out a valuation, so the 'they' is presumably the surveyor.

DandelionPatrol

bouicca21 wrote: »

Well he/she says dated, not issued. Presumably it was not available to OP at the time so it raises questions about who commissioned it and when. The bank stated they did not carry out a valuation, so the 'they' is presumably the surveyor.

OP seems to be making some effort to express the valuation as being one done at the time rather than one done later relating to the value in 2006.

If it is a later valuation, then I too would say 'no chance'

AdrianC

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

What they have done is morally reprehensible. At the time of advancing £135,000 pounds they valued the purchase at £153,000 in dealings with the OP, while knowing that their own valuer valued it at £125,000.

Woah, hold on a minute... That's NOT what the OP says.

This £153k figure is utterly irrelevant. The OP didn't pay £153k. The bank didn't lend him £153k. It is a red herring, no more.

We don't know where this £125k survey (versus the £130k the OP paid and the bank lent) came into anything. We don't know who commissioned it or who saw it nine years ago.

We do know that the bank say that, for new-build, they went with the developer's valuation. 100% mortgages were not uncommon before the crash.

So... what DO we know? Before the crash, the OP wanted to buy a property for £130k, applied for a £130k mortgage, and got it. And now, presumably still in -ve equity, regrets it.

Hoploz

I don't understand. Why would they sell it to you for 15% below market value?