Shared Ownership staircasing valuation dispute with Housing Association

MobileSaver

howardmeer said:

MobileSaver said:

The HA will prove his valuation of zero manifestly wrong for the very reason the surveyor gave you for doing it. It's not a genuine, accurate valuation, it's an industry-accepted figure to put down on the form when there are unknowns preventing a true valuation to be given, which is exactly what the surveyor stated with his note of "material uncertainty".Anyway, it's no-one here that you have to convince, it's the court and as stated I think you need to spend real money on more informed opinions before committing to thousands or tens of thousands on what I believe is a futile action. Good luck, you'll need it.

I hear what you are saying - but it's not a "wrong" valuation if it follows the RICS guidance on SO valuations

That's your opinion but I disagree and I believe the court will too.

howardmeer said:

what if it said £1, or £10, or £10,000 or £100,00?  HA can't just dispute the valuation because they don't like it;

I agree they can't dispute the valuation just because they don't like it but they can dispute if they believe it to be manifestly wrong and my belief is that saying your property was literally worth nothing is easily proven to be manifestly wrong. (Not least of which presumably some of the unknowns are now known so could be applied retrospectively to the valuation date/figure in question.)

howardmeer

MobileSaver said:

howardmeer said:

MobileSaver said:

The HA will prove his valuation of zero manifestly wrong for the very reason the surveyor gave you for doing it. It's not a genuine, accurate valuation, it's an industry-accepted figure to put down on the form when there are unknowns preventing a true valuation to be given, which is exactly what the surveyor stated with his note of "material uncertainty".Anyway, it's no-one here that you have to convince, it's the court and as stated I think you need to spend real money on more informed opinions before committing to thousands or tens of thousands on what I believe is a futile action. Good luck, you'll need it.

I hear what you are saying - but it's not a "wrong" valuation if it follows the RICS guidance on SO valuations

That's your opinion but I disagree and I believe the court will too.

howardmeer said:

what if it said £1, or £10, or £10,000 or £100,00?  HA can't just dispute the valuation because they don't like it;

I agree they can't dispute the valuation just because they don't like it but they can dispute if they believe it to be manifestly wrong and my belief is that saying your property was literally worth nothing is easily proven to be manifestly wrong. (Not least of which presumably some of the unknowns are now known so could be applied retrospectively to the valuation date/figure in question.)

I see your point.
SO did put it to the HA that if they disputed the valuation, they should put their points to the surveyor - the HA declined and this is recorded in email.
I've seen a few related posts where there is a dispute over the valuation when staircasing and the HA has advised the SO to speak to/put their points and evidence to the surveyor for response. That is what the SO offered the HA and they refused - I guess because they just didn't accept the basis of the valuation.
Personally, I can't see how now, after 2 years, they can serious say, okay now we want to put our points to the surveyor. That would be like me saying well Covid was not the complete disaster it was, so I want more money from the Buyer now as the valuation has gone up.  There has to be a line and that is stated to be 3-month validity of the valuation.

GDB2222

I'm curious about one thing. You apparently weren't happy with the answers you got on your first thread. Has this thread given you any 'better' answers?

GDB2222

If there's a 'complaint' route that you can use to get satisfaction, use that.

Otherwise, as the HA clearly are not going to budge, you either need to drop it or go to court. 

It really is that simple. 

[Deleted User]

Stupid question but does a nil valuation really mean that its worth or something more nuanced? After all OP is pretty keen to own 100% of something worthless. Yes the property may be laden with repair costs but it seems most people think its worth something more than nil! 

Slightly different scenario but 1 lender valued a family property at nil and the next at 325.

howardmeer

GDB2222 said:

If there's a 'complaint' route that you can use to get satisfaction, use that.

Otherwise, as the HA clearly are not going to budge, you either need to drop it or go to court. 

It really is that simple. 

Already done - as with most HA Complaints Procedures, the complaint just went to the same person and they gave the same answer!  Housing Ombudsman is one route, but their Rules say they don't get involved in considering valuation disputes, only processes.

I get it's going to "Court", however even that is not clear - should it be the county courts or in fact the First Tier Property/Land Tribunal who deal specifically with leaseholder disputes. Each route has its pros and cons - on benefit of the FTT is that legal costs are not recoverable by either party and are generally lower than going to county court process...

user1977

[Deleted User] said:

Slightly different scenario but 1 lender valued a family property at nil and the next at 325.

That's more likely to be because it didn't meet the first lender's criteria for acceptable properties, not that they literally thought its value to the world at large was zero.

howardmeer

[Deleted User] said:

Stupid question but does a nil valuation really mean that its worth or something more nuanced? After all OP is pretty keen to own 100% of something worthless. Yes the property may be laden with repair costs but it seems most people think its worth something more than nil! 

Slightly different scenario but 1 lender valued a family property at nil and the next at 325.

Not a stupid question at all brett - in this case, the SO owns 30%m but still has to cover 100% of the remedial costs (notwithstanding the HA own 70%). That in itself is unfair.
Hence if the SO is going to have put 100% of the remedial costs anyway, it makes no difference if he continues to own 30% or 100%. Also, with interest rates on mortgages relatively low (in March 2020), owning more of the share means the rent paid (on the 70%) goes down. If the mortgage repayments are lower than the rent payments, it makes sense to staircase to 100%.

Of course valuation can vary by lender - however, the Lease says the valuation by the appointed Valuer shall be binding on both parties. There is no getting away from that and there is no provision for going to another surveyor or dispute resolution etc.

howardmeer

user1977 said:

[Deleted User] said:

Slightly different scenario but 1 lender valued a family property at nil and the next at 325.

That's more likely to be because it didn't meet the first lender's criteria for acceptable properties, not that they literally thought its value to the world at large was zero.

These are mortgage company valuations for lending purposes and mortgage companies are free to offer or decline to lend. However, staircasing valuation are different, have different RICS guidances and for the most part, HAs are obliged under the terms of the Lease to accept them on face value (or supposedly they are!).

howardmeer

GDB2222 said:

I'm curious about one thing. You apparently weren't happy with the answers you got on your first thread. Has this thread given you any 'better' answers?

I'm using the other thread to cross-ref against Help to Buy valuation issue because it's similar - there was a case where a HTB loan was redeemed at the cladding-affected price (much lower valuation). Then the Scheme changed the rules for redemption - to stop a flood of similar cases. However, after an outcry, Homes England announced that loans could be redeemed at cladding-affected values, but valuations had to be done via their qualified surveyors.
Both threads have given me some good points to consider/review.
I'm grateful to all who have taken the time to comment.