Distritc Valuer disagrees valuation

getmore4less

What research have you done on what the place is worth?

Tom99

You had 4 valuation for open market value at the date of death?, were they all the same figure? If not how did you arrive at the open market value you gave for IHT?
Send the Valuation Office a copy of the 4 valuations plus if they differ how you decided on the figure you returned.
If the VO still want to query the value you will have to appoint an RICS surveyor (who may be one of the 4) to negotiate on your behalf.

castle96

All 4 valuations (all non-RICS) were 1 page letterheaded letters all showing the same price. They were Estate Agent opinions of the current state of the property. Yes you could spend £50k on it and it might be worth ? £25k more. You could do that to any house - so what. Sister assumes that copies of the vals were, sent by the solicitor (if not surely should have been/will be when she contacts solicitor Tues.
I would have thought 4 local Agent vals would be = to 1 RICS val (who would be from a different town as their are no RICS in hers.

Yorkshireman99

castle96 wrote: »

All 4 valuations (all non-RICS) were 1 page letterheaded letters all showing the same price. They were Estate Agent opinions of the current state of the property. Yes you could spend £50k on it and it might be worth ? £25k more. You could do that to any house - so what. Sister assumes that copies of the vals were, sent by the solicitor (if not surely should have been/will be when she contacts solicitor Tues.
I would have thought 4 local Agent vals would be = to 1 RICS val (who would be from a different town as their are no RICS in hers.

So they were NOT proper RICS valuations. RICS valueersvwork from a set of rules the same way the DV does.

Keep_pedalling

castle96 wrote: »

All 4 valuations (all non-RICS) were 1 page letterheaded letters all showing the same price. They were Estate Agent opinions of the current state of the property. Yes you could spend £50k on it and it might be worth ? £25k more. You could do that to any house - so what. Sister assumes that copies of the vals were, sent by the solicitor (if not surely should have been/will be when she contacts solicitor Tues.
I would have thought 4 local Agent vals would be = to 1 RICS val (who would be from a different town as their are no RICS in hers.

The assumption you sister made was incorrect, IHT405 only requires valuation documents to be sent back with the form where special circumstances apply such as where damage to the building or development potential affects the valuation.

Uxb1

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

So they were NOT proper RICS valuations. RICS valueersvwork from a set of rules the same way the DV does.

Indeed
My last RICS valuation report ran to 21 pages, it detailed the property room by room, it commentated on the general condition of the house (in need to much refurbishment!), the basis of valuation, and the full qualifications of the RICS surveyor doing the work plus his signature etc at the end
...and it cost the estate several hundred pounds.

I got it done ASAP after the death - day after the funeral as I recall.
The deceased's solicitor gave me the the names of two RICS qualified persons he recommended.

getmore4less

As far as I can tell all the DV has done is ask for the evidence used to get the number put on the form but that seems not to be known.

They have not disagreed yet

Send off what you have and see what they say next

Yorkshireman99

getmore4less wrote: »

As far as I can tell all the DV has done is ask for the evidence used to get the number put on the form but that seems not to be known.

They have not disagreed yet

Send off what you have and see what they say next

The DV has a set of rules for valuing known as I am told the “Red Book”. That is also used by RICS as the formal basis for valuing.it is recognised by the DV and RICS that there is a margin of possible error and that some haggling around the figure arrived at. Hope this helps. pS googling red book valuation provides several links.

theoretica

I think you are putting too much weight on the word 'agreed'. It probably meant something like 'has been checked for arithmetical errors' rather than 'finalised and immune from future queries'.