Right to Buy Valuation

sho_me_da_money

Thats some great information Mr Da_Rule - Always there when you call, always on time!

What are your thoughts on my idea of paying the extra £300 to appoint my own independent RICs certified surveyor AND use that as a data point to determine how close/far out the initial valuation is? I dont want to go straight to the DV as their valuation could be higher and binding.

Of course, the initial valuation may be terrific and I may not bother pursuing however, if it feels weighty then I can reject, get them to instruct a DV and then provide some data to highlight why I think the original was on the heavy side.

Thanks again sir.

Norman_Castle

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

What are your thoughts on my idea of paying the extra £300 to appoint my own independent RICs certified surveyor AND use that as a data point to determine how close/far out the initial valuation is? I dont want to go straight to the DV as their valuation could be higher and binding.

I know one property where one initial RICS valuation was 23% higher than another. They are just an opinion, often accurate but not always. You probably have an idea of what the value is, if you feel the valuation is wrong use the DV.

markin

You would want to get a full surveyor report anyway would you not, You are buying a house what if its defective and worthless and the valuation missed it.

sevenhills

Norman_Castle wrote: »

I know one property where one RICS valuation was 23% higher than another. They are just an opinion, often accurate but not always. You probably have an idea of what the value is, if you feel the valuation is wrong use the DV.

sho_me_da_money seems to have already decided that the valuation will be wrong, a friend of mine was of the opinion that they value high, that theory was proved wrong.
I was happy, within reason, with any valuation, as I wanted it sorted and I was getting a very good discount.

da_rule

One other thing to remember as well is that the Council’s valuer is probably someone they have used frequently so is well versed in valuing their housing stock and valuing it in a manner which conforms with the requirements of Right to Buy.

Therefore, you could argue that his valuation would hold more sway than someone who hasn’t done such a valuation before.

Also, if the Council’s valuer gets it wrong then they may lose a recurring income stream, which will give them further incentive to ensure that it is properly done.

sho_me_da_money

da_rule wrote: »

One other thing to remember as well is that the Council’s valuer is probably someone they have used frequently so is well versed in valuing their housing stock and valuing it in a manner which conforms with the requirements of Right to Buy.

Therefore, you could argue that his valuation would hold more sway than someone who hasn’t done such a valuation before.

Also, if the Council’s valuer gets it wrong then they may lose a recurring income stream, which will give them further incentive to ensure that it is properly done.

Agreed however, the valuation from the initial surveyor can get be wrong (very wrong if you consider the post above about being 25K out). I do not want to be in the same situation.

Another thing is this - lets say the initial surveyor appointed by the council states the house is worth between 170 - 195K. Wouldn't it be in the best interest of the council to offer the house to the tenant for 195K? Why would they offer it at 170K when they can ask for an extra 25K based on the tope-end side of an official valuation?

The point I am making is that if these initial surveyors were bulletproof in valuing properties of a similar spec then there would be no need to offer an option to reject and request a DV right? The fact that the option exists highlights that an issue in valuation can arise.

The part that shocks me is how can an initial surveyor be 25K out from a DVs valuation?!? I get that valuations can be subjective by the firm conducting them and I can accept there might be a close differences (1K-5K) but 25K is madness.

Of course, there are many tenants who have secured a great prices and I accept that too can happen but I am proactively assessing my options should that not be the case.

unforeseen

The part that shocks me is how can an initial surveyor be 25K out from a DVs valuation?!?

Unless you can get hold of the DV's report explaining the difference then it will go down as another unexplained mystery of the universe.

It may be something as simple as the DV looking at a wider picture than the surveyor.

Cakeguts

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

Agreed however, the valuation from the initial surveyor can get be wrong (very wrong if you consider the post above about being 25K out). I do not want to be in the same situation.

Another thing is this - lets say the initial surveyor appointed by the council states the house is worth between 170 - 195K. Wouldn't it be in the best interest of the council to offer the house to the tenant for 195K? Why would they offer it at 170K when they can ask for an extra 25K based on the tope-end side of an official valuation?

The point I am making is that if these initial surveyors were bulletproof in valuing properties of a similar spec then there would be no need to offer an option to reject and request a DV right? The fact that the option exists highlights that an issue in valuation can arise.

The part that shocks me is how can an initial surveyor be 25K out from a DVs valuation?!? I get that valuations can be subjective by the firm conducting them and I can accept there might be a close differences (1K-5K) but 25K is madness.

Of course, there are many tenants who have secured a great prices and I accept that too can happen but I am proactively assessing my options should that not be the case.

It might depend on the property. There are some council houses that the councils really don't want. They would rather have flats because they are easier to manage than houses. If you have a block of flats that is only one roof and 4 walls that contain a lot of flats and they are all in the same. If you want to work on the roof that is one set of scaffolding that stays in the same place but when it is houses and the roofs you have to keep moving the scaffolding and the workers around. Not only that but lots of council estates have open spaces in them where the grass needs to be kept cut and weeds kept down but a block of flats might have a small bit of lawn round it.



The other problem is that 1930s council houses don't really have room for fitted kitchens in them. In a block of new build social housing flats that can all be designed in. It is really cheaper for the tenants and the taxpayers not to have council housing but to have council flats.

Norman_Castle

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

Another thing is this - lets say the initial surveyor appointed by the council states the house is worth between 170 - 195K.

They wont, the valuation will be a set amount. Its a valuation, not a guide price. The council are obliged to sell at the valuation price.

da_rule

In these sort of valuations, the valuer doesn’t usually put a range, they put an exact figure, which is where some discrepancies can occur.

You keep clinging to the £25k example, but this is one example. There are also countless examples of properties being undervalued and the DV pushing the value up.