|
|
Post by martin44 on Sept 4, 2016 19:03:46 GMT
cooling_dude : Re Does this help lender's position in any way? i.e. is there a kind of fall back? I'm not sure TBH; however the surveying company does have Professional Indemnity Insurance, as indicated in the following section in the VR There is no indication in the valuation report that the surveyor confirmed that the 2014 PP was implemented correctly, and the VR states that they "have formulated our valuation based on direct comparison methodology", so they have simply inspected the property and compared said property to similar properties in the area. The is also the following paragraph in the VR... My personal opinion is that surveyor should examine the available PP documents and then compare the details to the property they are surveying. There is no indication in the VR that they are obliged to do so, however, they do have Professional Standards set out by the RICS (called the "Red Book") but I have no idea what it requires the surveyor to carry out.... one day I will have to read it  . The valuation was carried out well before any problems were highlighted, iirc the valuation was completed in jan 2016 , when all planning applications had been passed, the recent retrospective problems did not surface until august, The surveyor, at the time of his valuation, would have found no need for concern based on planning applications, as all was in order, in fact he clearly states in his valuation that he has the right to re-evaluate, should any material planning details prove to be incorrect.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853 
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Sept 4, 2016 19:16:08 GMT
I'm not sure TBH; however the surveying company does have Professional Indemnity Insurance, as indicated in the following section in the VR There is no indication in the valuation report that the surveyor confirmed that the 2014 PP was implemented correctly, and the VR states that they "have formulated our valuation based on direct comparison methodology", so they have simply inspected the property and compared said property to similar properties in the area. The is also the following paragraph in the VR... My personal opinion is that surveyor should examine the available PP documents and then compare the details to the property they are surveying. There is no indication in the VR that they are obliged to do so, however, they do have Professional Standards set out by the RICS (called the "Red Book") but I have no idea what it requires the surveyor to carry out.... one day I will have to read it . The valuation was carried out well before any problems were highlighted, iirc the valuation was completed in jan 2016 , when all planning applications had been passed, the recent retrospective problems did not surface until august, The surveyor, at the time of his valuation, would have found no need for concern based on planning applications, as all was in order, in fact he clearly states in his valuation that he has the right to re-evaluate, should any material planning details prove to be incorrect. I know the valuation was carried out before the problems came to light, but I still think they should have taken the 2014 PP and compared the physical property to these details. The VR notes the internal floor areas so a quick comparison would have flagged that something was wrong (like the additional 100m3 not included in the 2014 PP!). I guess it comes down to what you expect from these valuation reports; maybe it's more of a solicitors domain (so then the blame would lie with somebody at SS).
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Sept 4, 2016 19:21:59 GMT
The valuation was carried out well before any problems were highlighted, iirc the valuation was completed in jan 2016 , when all planning applications had been passed, the recent retrospective problems did not surface until august, The surveyor, at the time of his valuation, would have found no need for concern based on planning applications, as all was in order, in fact he clearly states in his valuation that he has the right to re-evaluate, should any material planning details prove to be incorrect. I know the valuation was carried out before the problems came to light, but I still think they should have taken the 2014 PP and compared the physical property to these details. The VR notes the internal floor areas so a quick comparison would have flagged that something was wrong (like the additional 100m3 not included in the 2014 PP!). I guess it comes down to what you expect from these valuation reports; maybe it's more of a solicitors domain (so then the blame would lie with somebody at SS). The problem is even if the surveyor should have done something it will not be him that is sued but effectively his PI insurers, then who is going to sue them, savingstream as your agent? Possibly they are culpable in not checking it themselves, very messy, very time consuming and very expensive.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Sept 4, 2016 19:24:57 GMT
I know the valuation was carried out before the problems came to light, but I still think they should have taken the 2014 PP and compared the physical property to these details. The VR notes the internal floor areas so a quick comparison would have flagged that something was wrong (like the additional 100m3 not included in the 2014 PP!). I guess it comes down to what you expect from these valuation reports; maybe it's more of a solicitors domain (so then the blame would lie with somebody at SS). The problem is even if the surveyor should have done something it will not be him that is sued but effectively his PI insurers, then who is going to sue them, savingstream as your agent? Possibly they are culpable in not checking it themselves, very messy, very time consuming and very expensive. ...and (I guess) only to be considered if the loan defaults and Lendy are unable to recover the capital.
|
|
|
|
Post by brokenbiscuits on Sept 4, 2016 19:29:17 GMT
The problem is even if the surveyor should have done something it will not be him that is sued but effectively his PI insurers, then who is going to sue them, savingstream as your agent? Possibly they are culpable in not checking it themselves, very messy, very time consuming and very expensive. ...and (I guess) only to be considered if the loan defaults and Lendy are unable to recover the capital. Yeah, it's not enough to say someone was negligent. the claimant needs to be able to show they have suffered a loss.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Sept 4, 2016 19:31:59 GMT
The valuation was carried out well before any problems were highlighted, iirc the valuation was completed in jan 2016 , when all planning applications had been passed, the recent retrospective problems did not surface until august, The surveyor, at the time of his valuation, would have found no need for concern based on planning applications, as all was in order, in fact he clearly states in his valuation that he has the right to re-evaluate, should any material planning details prove to be incorrect. I know the valuation was carried out before the problems came to light, but I still think they should have taken the 2014 PP and compared the physical property to these details. The VR notes the internal floor areas so a quick comparison would have flagged that something was wrong (like the additional 100m3 not included in the 2014 PP!). I guess it comes down to what you expect from these valuation reports; maybe it's more of a solicitors domain (so then the blame would lie with somebody at SS). I would agree with some of your points CD ... but the valuer was brought in to value the property in its present state , and to ascertain its present value for the purposes of an SS loan, i'm sure that SS would not have asked the valuer to value the asset base on previous planning aspects, indeed the valuation was based on current planning aspects, which were all in order. And rightly so, the loan was based on today's values, imho the valuation was fairly accurate when made, and to now consider the surveyor at fault is incorrect.
|
|
fp
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 853
|
Post by fp on Sept 4, 2016 19:39:30 GMT
I wouldn't point the finger at the surveyor, as martin44 say's, this valuation was carried out some time ago, before the "illegal" work was carried out, but it begs the question, Should SS be keeping a closer eye on these type of developments to make sure the borrower isn't doing anything that can be of detriment to the value of the security. |
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Sept 4, 2016 19:46:46 GMT
I wouldn't point the finger at the surveyor, as martin44 say's, this valuation was carried out some time ago, before the "illegal" work was carried out, but it begs the question, Should SS be keeping a closer eye on these type of developments to make sure the borrower isn't doing anything that can be of detriment to the value of the security. More fundamentally, is a loan on a uncompleted property a bridging loan, as PBL would suggest?
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Sept 4, 2016 19:53:41 GMT
I wouldn't point the finger at the surveyor, as martin44 say's, this valuation was carried out some time ago, before the "illegal" work was carried out, but it begs the question, Should SS be keeping a closer eye on these type of developments to make sure the borrower isn't doing anything that can be of detriment to the value of the security. you are quite correct, the problem being created is clear to me, SS do not seem to be able to differentiate between a "valuer" and a "surveyor" In my experience a surveyor is not employed to place a value on a property, they are employed to ascertain the present structural/habitable suitability of a property to be used as an asset. If the structural aspects of the property are acceptable, then a valuer is instructed to place an accurate valuation on the asset based on the surveyors report.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Sept 4, 2016 19:54:16 GMT
...and (I guess) only to be considered if the loan defaults and Lendy are unable to recover the capital. Yeah, it's not enough to say someone was negligent. the claimant needs to be able to show they have suffered a loss. The whole basis of this conversation is that a loss is anticipated. Although I still think that is a premature assumption. There are only two types of civil legal action that do not require a loss to be proved, personal injury and defamation.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Sept 4, 2016 19:58:42 GMT
I wouldn't point the finger at the surveyor, as martin44 say's, this valuation was carried out some time ago, before the "illegal" work was carried out, but it begs the question, Should SS be keeping a closer eye on these type of developments to make sure the borrower isn't doing anything that can be of detriment to the value of the security. More fundamentally, is a loan on a uncompleted property a bridging loan, as PBL would suggest? Surely at the time of the loan, the property was completed, the retrospective issues did not arise for over 4 months.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Sept 4, 2016 20:11:44 GMT
Appparently not, or at least an alleged prospective purchaser did not seem to think so
"willing to exchange subject to various modifications of certain aspects of the property for which our borrower needs our funds to complete"
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Sept 4, 2016 20:17:23 GMT
I know the valuation was carried out before the problems came to light, but I still think they should have taken the 2014 PP and compared the physical property to these details. The VR notes the internal floor areas so a quick comparison would have flagged that something was wrong (like the additional 100m3 not included in the 2014 PP!). I guess it comes down to what you expect from these valuation reports; maybe it's more of a solicitors domain (so then the blame would lie with somebody at SS). I would agree with some of your points CD ... but the valuer was brought in to value the property in its present state , and to ascertain its present value for the purposes of an SS loan, i'm sure that SS would not have asked the valuer to value the asset base on previous planning aspects, indeed the valuation was based on current planning aspects, which were all in order. And rightly so, the loan was based on today's values, imho the valuation was fairly accurate when made, and to now consider the surveyor at fault is incorrect. I do agree. Like I said it all depends on what is expected from a Valuation Report, but I'm no expert in the field; I just always assumed that the VR involved a more vigorous look at all the material they have available when they look for a value, such as the deeds and PP docs, as opposed to just simply looking at the property, especially considering how much they charge. Anyway, that is all immaterial (unless the loan does default); as some have pointed out, long before the loan went live SS in-house DD should have picked up on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Sept 4, 2016 20:24:30 GMT
Appparently not, or at least an alleged prospective purchaser did not seem to think so "willing to exchange subject to various modifications of certain aspects of the property for which our borrower needs our funds to complete" These comments do not indicate any inconsistencies with the original planning apps , indeed they could quite simply mean "i need bathroom A moving to position B " . Your comment would seem to indicate that SS knew there were planning problems before they ok'ed the loan.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Sept 4, 2016 20:36:59 GMT
I would agree with some of your points CD ... but the valuer was brought in to value the property in its present state , and to ascertain its present value for the purposes of an SS loan, i'm sure that SS would not have asked the valuer to value the asset base on previous planning aspects, indeed the valuation was based on current planning aspects, which were all in order. And rightly so, the loan was based on today's values, imho the valuation was fairly accurate when made, and to now consider the surveyor at fault is incorrect. I do agree. Like I said it all depends on what is expected from a Valuation Report, but I'm no expert in the field; I just always assumed that the VR involved a more vigorous look at all the material they have available when they look for a value, such as the deeds and PP docs, as opposed to just simply looking at the property, especially considering how much they charge. Anyway, that is all immaterial (unless the loan does default); as some have pointed out, long before the loan went live SS in-house DD should have picked up on this. From my personal experience, the valuation report should be read as exactly that. "This is a valuation of the asset in its current form" i would never rely on a valuer to provide any other pertinent information. They are not being paid to do so.
|
|
.
