Why lendy RICS valuer are so out of whack?

I'll have a think about the RICS angle - we certainly know the names of many of the valuers, as the valuations are posted to the site (Key now, Lendy removes all the valuations, or edits them so we cant see the names of the valuers) - legally, could a third party sue the valuer on behalf of investors?  I'm not a lawyer - but I can see very clear evidence of negligence - whether that is influenced by Lendy leaning on the valuer to give a glowing report - as in the case of the waste processing site - which is just a tin shed and acre or so of goat pasture, which was valued at multi millions on the basis of a crackpot business plan.  In this case, the only concrete, recoverable cash value was the shed and land.  RICS need to be pressured from a great height to issue professional guidance regarding the behaviour of their members when undertaking such valuations.  It is coincidentally why some of our surveyors refuse to join RICS - not to mention the hefty annual membership fee - precisely what do we get for that Mr RICS?

Certianly it would not hurt for Lendy lenders to individually submit complaints to RICS about the valuations.  Each has to be investigated - and they do NOT like formal complaints.  Once a pattern has formed, they are going to find it very hard to slither out sideways and will have to either take action, or at the very least issue guidance, which will make it easier to sue those who issue silly money valuations.  I agree with another poster that Lendy should be getting at least two, if not three independent valuations.  Happy to try and co-ordinate something - I can't see Lendy doing a damn thing - they are too busy drinking champers and watching yachts.

Good to see everyone finally getting worked up about these "Professionals" and their VERY lucrative little "Industry".  Go grotdpg!

Umm no it wasn't actually the Valuations that did it for me - having had a few surveys and their caveats work for/against me personally in the past I've always accepted there's a lot of fudging, and that anything commercial is always going to involve even huger dollops of salt when so much of the value is dependent on trading figures/estimates. More of a gut thing for me, which has worked pretty well*. I never felt entirely comfortable with Lendy so only ever invested small amounts on the basis that I'd sell out before they were due, had sold out about 2/3 of my max anyway due to less attractive dealflow and was ready to pull the plug on the rest at any time. When they changed the SM I decided that was it - too risky to stay. So I sold the rest. Not quite quickly enough, as I didn't put it all up at once so I still have a little stuck in Exeter, but it's a trivial amount whose greatest annoyance is that I have to keep a spreadsheet column open for it!
Logged in yesterday for the first time in ages and was aghast at just how many of the loans I was in are still there one year on, still not repaying

*Might help sometimes to pay a bit more attention to it. Wasn't comfortable with COL but figured worth the risk on a small amount, and was gradually selling out. Hey ho.

Try halving 90D for those buyers that happen to be in auction room at the time.

RICs values are not going to be sued over fire sales, they are not the valuations they provide us with.

If not lambasting then certainly supporting the status quo and accepting "that's just the way things/VRs are."  sort of comments.  You know, the ole "You don't get 12% without risk."  reasoning, which totally misses the point I've been trying to make for 19 months.

RICS basically didn't want to know. I've deleted my emails since then but will check my database in case I kept a copy of their mealy mouthed arse covering missive.  I recall they don't think there's a problem at all.  

You could be forgiven for thinking that chartered bodies don't exist to enforce professional standards, but to support each other against claims that they have failed to observe them.