Drive by valuations of property

My question is, are drive by valuations of distressed properties a fair method of valuation ?

Would this method of valuation stand up to legal challenge ?

in what context?

mortgage valuation for new lending? probably not
acquisition of high volume loan book by fund? probably so

if you're talking 'normal' valuation as part of mortgage application, the Mortgage Credit Directive is going to tighten up the quality of valuations significantly so that they have to be done in accordance with certain professional standards

Mackemdub said:

in what context?

mortgage valuation for new lending? probably not
acquisition of high volume loan book by fund? probably so

if you're talking 'normal' valuation as part of mortgage application, the Mortgage Credit Directive is going to tighten up the quality of valuations significantly so that they have to be done in accordance with certain professional standards

Click to expand...

Context: receiver sale.

I thought a receiver had to get the best price reasonably attainable, at the time of sale, for every distressed property ( their equitable duty to the debtor ). If a receiver allowed valuers to conduct drive by valuations, are they not leaving themselves very exposed to legal challenge. For example the valuer values a house as a three bed during a drive by valuation, but it is in fact a 4 bed with an attic conversion. The house is subsequently sold as part of a large portfolio to a fund for x amount when in fact the market value for the house is substantially more.

Mick Fitzgerald said:

I thought a receiver had to get the best price reasonably attainable, at the time of sale, for every distressed property ( their equitable duty to the debtor ). If a receiver allowed valuers to conduct drive by valuations, are they not leaving themselves very exposed to legal challenge. For example the valuer values a house as a three bed during a drive by valuation, but it is in fact a 4 bed with an attic conversion. The house is subsequently sold as part of a large portfolio to a fund for x amount when in fact the market value for the house is substantially more.

Click to expand...

That is what we are told is the situation but what is actually taking place appears to be much different.

I have seen enough examples of where there is no transparency whatsoever in the sale of properties to large and medium sized funds to be able to stand over this statement.

Perfectly saleable houses (sold by receivers) suddenly appearing on the property price register at much lower than market value. No advertising of they being for sale whatsoever and sometime later being sold at a quite high return having been advertised. I have seen parts of a distressed portfolio in the same estate being "selected" by a fund ( better houses) and offloaded within a year.

Receivers duty to debtors is a nice phrase but alas that is all it is.

Who is going to challenge them with their team of top lawyers any anyway if they did feel they were in a tight corner the receiver would settle out of court with a "gagging" clause.

I think I will give it a spin down the courts.