Overvaluation of Property

Immers7

Hoploz wrote: »

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

Amazing how many people fall for Rule 101 of Sales Tactics.

2006 and the booming market but they are offering a discount to sell the place.

booksurr

Mtuson wrote: »

Back in 2006 I purchased a new property off plan, allegedly 15% below market value,
The "market" value was £153K, and I was able to purchase the property at £130K.

so what did you do to establish it was 153 market value BEFORE you bought it?????

I won't hold my breath to that, or your chance of claiming "the difference" 9 years later. You, and you alone, are responsible for your own decisions

DandelionPatrol

AdrianC wrote: »

Woah, hold on a minute... That's NOT what the OP says.[1]

This £153k figure is utterly irrelevant.[2] 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.[3]

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.[4]

[4] Absolutely
[3] By strong implication at least, the survey now in the possession of OP is the one commissioned by the bank at the time
[2] the £153k is totally relevant to the LTV of 85% OP had at the time
[1] OP says

I obtained my mortgage through NatWest @ 85% of value so they agreed a mortgage of £130K.

so me saying

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.

is, I think a fair representation of what OP says.

Morally, I would rather leave OP in the miasma of trying to claim that he was done by the bank in the manner of PPI misselling, than take the position of 'no chance', because it seems to me that

1. OP has been caught by his own greed in buying of plan without his own due diligence and realising the risks of buying on leveraged finances
2. The bank have been palpably dishonest here

Actually, I am being harder on OP than you are.

AdrianC

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

[3] By strong implication at least, the survey now in the possession of OP is the one commissioned by the bank at the time

The bank explicitly say they didn't commission one. The OP doesn't say the bank commissioned this one, or any one.

[2] the £153k is totally relevant to the LTV of 85% OP had at the time

That's not how LTV works.

This house is worth £1m - honest, guv, would I lie to you? - but I'll sell it to you for only £500k. If you get a £500k mortgage to buy it, is it 100% LTV or 50% LTV?

kinger101

If the property was worth £153K, why would the developer sell it to you for £130K? You thought it was worth £130K, and so did they. The bank didn't do a valuation (and neither did you), but someone else valued it a £125K. The £5K difference seems entirely within the margins of error for a valuation for something which is always somewhat subjective.

I'd get on with your life knowing you probably paid about what the property was worth. And that you might not be so lucky to own your own home had the bank valued it at £125K. Did you have the extra cash available at the time to meet the shortfall? It doesn't sound like it. Would you have been able to afford the repayments at a higher interest rate?

DandelionPatrol

AdrianC wrote: »

The bank explicitly say they didn't commission one. The OP doesn't say the bank commissioned this one, or any one.

I take the point to a certain extent. They are saying this now - it is actually what happened at the time which is important. OP needs to clarify on the provenance of the valuation and whether the bank knew about it. If they did not, then there is no complaint

AdrianC wrote: »

That's not how LTV works.

This house is worth £1m - honest, guv, would I lie to you? - but I'll sell it to you for only £500k. If you get a £500k mortgage to buy it, is it 100% LTV or 50% LTV?

OP says

I obtained my mortgage through NatWest @ 85% of value so they agreed a mortgage of £130K.

That is exactly how LTV works in terms of the figures. Whatever happened, OP got a mortgage at the rate for a loan of 85% of value.

soundmary

Surely this was a dodge used by developers at the time to help buyers get a mortgage? This makes a 100% mortgage "look like" an 85% mortgage.

AdrianC

Not really, since the sale price is the only figure that actually matters here. B'sides, 100% - even 110% - wasn't hard to get in those days.

It might well, otoh, have been a common marketing tactic...

DandelionPatrol

AdrianC wrote: »

Not really, since the sale price is the only figure that actually matters here. B'sides, 100% - even 110% - wasn't hard to get in those days.

It might well, otoh, have been a common marketing tactic...

soundmary gets it.

kinger101

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

Whatever happened, OP got a mortgage at the rate for a loan of 85% of value.

And they are now looking this gift horse in the mouth. I don't see them volunteering to retrospectively pay the sort of interest rates that might have been attached to a 100% or even 105% mortgage.