Surveyors don't look at lease terms when valueing - madness?

kinger101

Boler1985 wrote: »

So you'd be happy making an offer without this info?

Normally, you'd get it from the vendor or EA. If you get if from the EA, they'll tell you it came from the vendor, and it hasn't been verified. Otherwise EA is potentially opening themselves up to a misrepresentation case if it turns out to be incorrect (they do have some responsibilities as they're advertising).

You can either take it at face value, or ask for documentary evidence before making your offer. It will be checked by solicitor during conveyancing. You can hold off on surveys/mortgage applications etc until you've confirmed it's what you expected if you want.

sparky130a

Boler1985 wrote: »

So you'd be happy making an offer without this info?

Absolutely. But then i'd have asked the vendor first and if i thought they were in anyway evading or lying i'd walk away.

AnotherJoe

Seems to me most of the responders here have missed the point, it's not about the OPs specific circumstances it's about the completely fictional set of figures the surveyor used that are crucial to a valuation and that in the OPs opinion should not be made up but should use the actual figures for each case.

If the surveyor had said "I am valuing this property on the basis it has a roof in good condition, no damp and no subsidence, though I didn't check any of those" people would see the issue. Yet when it's about some financial figures, it's "whoosh" over their heads.

deFoix

AnotherJoe wrote: »

If the surveyor had said "I am valuing this property on the basis it has a roof in good condition, no damp and no subsidence, though I didn't check any of those" people would see the issue. Yet when it's about some financial figures, it's "whoosh" over their heads.

Precisely my point; made much more articulately than I:T

kinger101

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Seems to me most of the responders here have missed the point, it's not about the OPs specific circumstances it's about the completely fictional set of figures the surveyor used that are crucial to a valuation and that in the OPs opinion should not be made up but should use the actual figures for each case.

If the surveyor had said "I am valuing this property on the basis it has a roof in good condition, no damp and no subsidence, though I didn't check any of those" people would see the issue. Yet when it's about some financial figures, it's "whoosh" over their heads.

I think this is perhaps a failing of the individual surveyor. I have a low opinion of the profession myself, but I think most would request the facts on which to base their valuation. If this happened to me, I'd be on the phone telling them to redo the recalculations with real numbers.

I think one sign of how shady the whole profession is, is that they're about the only people who demand cash up front! Their valuations are the least of my concerns to be honest. They're only really for the banks. If you offered £250K for a property, and there are no major issues with it, it's still worth £250K as far as I'd be concerned as a vendor.

davidmcn

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Seems to me most of the responders here have missed the point, it's not about the OPs specific circumstances it's about the completely fictional set of figures the surveyor used that are crucial to a valuation and that in the OPs opinion should not be made up but should use the actual figures for each case.

If the surveyor had said "I am valuing this property on the basis it has a roof in good condition, no damp and no subsidence, though I didn't check any of those" people would see the issue. Yet when it's about some financial figures, it's "whoosh" over their heads.

Valuations are made with all sorts of assumptions (the road outside is adopted by the council, the extension has statutory consents, the dry rot treatment has a guarantee, the vague bit at the bottom of the garden belongs to the house, the solar panels don't have a weird agreement attached to them, etc). And yes, even the condition of the building can be assumed e.g. for bits they can't get access to (I've read plenty of "I couldn't see all of the roof" surveys!).

If any of these assumptions turn out to be incorrect, you (or your solicitors) then ask the surveyor whether the true facts affect the valuation. The same goes for those assumptions about the lease (which don't sound like an unreasonable starting point).

da_rule

As I see it, if surveyors have to start reading and interpreting/understanding leases, which can be complex, their costs would rise. Also, they may not have access to the lease to be able to read it.

They would also be duplicating the work of the solicitors who should highlight any potential issues (short leases/particularly restrictive covenants/service charges etc) before exchanging contracts. If these are a lot more onerous/detrimental than you thought they would be, you can go back and renegotiate or pull out.

It can also work the other way, if there is a very long time left on the lease 900+ years, the ground vent is very low (peppercorn rent) and the service charge is considerably less than the £1,500 p/a the property may be worth more than the survey value.

agrinnall

The simple answer is only to make offers on freehold properties. If you're looking at leasehold then as a buyer you need to be aware that there are more factors that need to be investigated before arriving at a value.

AdrianC

Seems very simple to me. The surveyor is looking ONLY at the property. The paperwork is not his problem. His valuation assumes all the paperwork is in order.

If the lease is problematic, for whatever reason, then that's the solicitor's job. He will flag it, and you can then renegotiate the offer or walk away.

Guest101

Boler1985 wrote: »

All very good for people like you and me who understand the issues/risks and ask the right questions. Not everyone is so lucky.

If people don't understand these basics, they shouldn't be buying a property....