Australian Broker forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

ValEx tells brokers to stop disputing valuations

Notify me of new replies via email
Australian Broker | 15 Sep 2011, 02:00 AM Agree 0
Brokers need to stop disputing low valuations, as it will seldom lead to any change in the original assessment, ValEx has said
  • Broker Redcliffe QLD | 15 Sep 2011, 10:17 AM Agree 0
    The only issue I have with the Valex and telling brokers not to dispute the valuation is that the valuers dont agree on the same value for each property. I had a client and a valuation firm valued the property at 385k and this meant the client paid MI and yet a full valuation with another firm(and lender) valued the property at 400k no MI so the client went with the second choice lender and all over a 15k increase, this is only a small variation but as I am sure others have I have had come properties with a 10-15% variation a week apart. So with taht inconsistancy I will always dispute the valuation, and that dispute may only be a phone call to the valuer to get an understanding of the valuation a bit better. I work for work for the client so I will dispute the valuation if that will help the client.
  • Tim Wright - 0418 700 654 | 15 Sep 2011, 10:20 AM Agree 0
    The problem with valuaiton is much deeper then simply a broker or consumer not accepting. Many valuers are also not playing by the rules of simply assessing sales - they also taking into account who has sold the property, in some cases if investors out of state have purchsed, and all such issues - as well as the whole professioanl indemnity debacle the valuaiton and finance industry has got itself into. Brokers should and must question valuers.
  • Keith Bridges | 15 Sep 2011, 10:33 AM Agree 0
    One has to question valuers' do they believe they are beyond question?. Some of the reports we have seen nothing short of ridiculous and of course they won't change even wiht supporting sales evidence becuase that would mean admitting to an oversite. What I find most disturbing, it that through this whole process whether a deal gets written or not they get paid for services rendered, even if such services are questionable. Maybe if they were only paid on a successful outcome, we might see a change of this authoritive non negotiable attitude.
  • Garry | 15 Sep 2011, 10:36 AM Agree 0
    Brokers have every right to dispute absurd valuations. I recently had a val from one valuer for a Toorak property at one figure and when I refinanced him to another lender the property valuation came in 150K higher than my original estimate. I have also had many instances where valuations differ markedly with the same properties in the one development when I have sent the deals to different lenders. Valuers are extreamly arrogant and think they know best. They are given far too much power over the lending process. They are often lazy and rude to the clients and far too often, bring their personal opinions into the valuation. Even the banks are fed up with some of them. Surely the banks have sufficient data on hand to determine what similar properties in the particular area is selling for. If we agreed with their assessments then we wouldnt challenge them.
  • John | 15 Sep 2011, 10:39 AM Agree 0
    Valex themselves should be doing more due diligence on the valuers they use. Some valuers will always under value compared to others in the same area, and I have even proved with my own due diligence the value was under valued, and even though the valuer moved by 10K, it was not enough and the client pulled out of the deal. Valex get your act together!
  • Glen Miller | 15 Sep 2011, 10:40 AM Agree 0
    If valuers valued in a uniformed manner and did not try to undervalue for the banks brokers may take a better view of their position. As to being in a position of no accountability for substandard valuations and no ability for check vals is unacceptable. Valuers get paid to tear up deals and get paid when no one else does. VALUERS ARE THE ENEMY.
  • Geoff Wilson | 15 Sep 2011, 10:43 AM Agree 0
    We have had many situations where valuations vary as much as $100,000 on the same property. Thats fairly hard to accept from a professional point of view. In many cases we have found that valuation reports are incorrect, and there are direct comparible sales that have not been used, where realisically they should be. It's time to have a good long hard look at this industry. I also agree valuation fees are too low and are also part of the issue.
  • ChrisC | 15 Sep 2011, 10:46 AM Agree 0
    With refinances, we can accept these comments as we know the market has slowed. I generally take off at least 10% of what the owner values their property at, fullwell knowing that it will come in shy on valuation to see if a refinance is still workable. But where new purchasers are made after the client has spent months looking around and has obtained a property at the best price on the day, to come in short with the valuation is hard to accept. They have purchased at today's value but the valuer is placing a value based on what they 'perceive' will happen in the future, in this case a property devaluation. If this is their argument for lower valuations so be it but why is it then, that we don't see valuations come in higher than the contracted purchase price in times of 'perceived' property value growth. Like Banks they change the policy to suit themselves. They want have their cake and they eat it too. Unfortunalety we all have to just accept this as a part of doing business tody.
  • Lee Harvey | 15 Sep 2011, 10:54 AM Agree 0
    I think we have cause to complain when 2 different valuations firms, both under the Valex umbrella, can value the same property 1 week apart and come up with a values that are 10% apart. Someone has it wrong!!
  • countrybroker | 15 Sep 2011, 10:55 AM Agree 0
    Michael Hooper is correct in some ways, valuers are generally correct IF THEY FOLLOW THEIR OWN ASSOCIATION'S STANDARDS, the trouble is they do not do this in many cases, The standard call for three RECENT RELEVANT sales comparisons. The valuers often do not do this !! There is a lack of willingness of valuers to properly research the market but to rely on sales data that has been derived from the SRO in each state or data info services that are not completly up to date and in many cases the reported sales are old and not relevant . In many instances when I speak to a real esatate agents tyo report a valuation shortfall they advise the valuer has spoken to them and they have given them up to date comparable sales information that is NOT used in the copmparable sales . An instance of a wrong valuer recently valued an 80 acre working farm on lenderrs request and instruction for a full valuation as a working farm , the valuation came back as a profarma Residantal valuation with comparable sale based on 1 to 5 acre homes located up to 60 Km away , valuer was upset and aggresive when asked to correct his valuation !!! Valuers on the valex panel to lift their game, stop being unprofessional and lazy and comply with the API standards and FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS , valuers should not try and define the market , but report it accuratley!
  • Robert Mercieca | 15 Sep 2011, 10:56 AM Agree 0
    It's insutling to state that brokers challenge ValEx' valuations because they would otherwise not receive their commission.

    Most brokers work very hard to assist their clients in a very professional manner.

    The fact is that there is often compelling evidence of recent comparable sales in the same area - which some valuers don't even include in their reports - which support higher valuations.

    Brokers can be equally cynical by stating that valuers are often too busy protecting their own backsides with conservative valuations.
  • Stuart | 15 Sep 2011, 10:59 AM Agree 0
    I had a property valued in Orange by one firm and they valued it at $425,000. This was a drop of $30,000 from 18 months ago when the property was built. The property now had a shed and landscaping completed which cost an additional $30,000. The valuer would not reconsider his figure. We then obtained a valution from another valuer for another financial institution and the valuation came in at $495,000. This was a variance of $70,000 which is a large variance. I spoke to the second valuer and mentioned the previous low valuation and he could not explain how a figure of $425,000 could be put on this property.

    I do not see how you can hace a 16% difference between two valuations completed within a week of each other.

    I will accept lower figures then the clients expect if it is in keeping with the market for the area.
  • Rodger | 15 Sep 2011, 11:00 AM Agree 0
    I couldnt agree more with many of the above comments. Valuers, banks ,and brokers are dealing with a clients biggest asset in life in most cases, and the inconsistencies are amazing, to say nothing of concerning in the extreme.Valuation with a different lender on one property showed a difference of $40,000 on a $349,000 purchase of a newly built property.Another one of over $100,000 on a refinance between two major lenders.In both instances vals were completed with in a few days of each other.I also notice that I have more valuation issues with 1 particular lender more than others. Naturally the bank denies any policy instructions to valuers.Last year it cost me over $16,000,000 in lost settlements because of valuations being poor. Newly built properties seem to be a particular favourite of valuers to smash. They compare older property sales with new ones , and if the agent gets commission for selling it they deduct that of the valuation ??? does an agent have to work for free? These guys take their fee with no responsibility for the consequences and there arrogance on being challenged with reason and supporting evidence defies belief. They should hang their heads in shame and stop calling themselves professionals until they conduct themselves accordingly.Maybe banks should also come clean on what basis they instruct valuers to asses a property. i.e. Fair market value, fire sale price etc.
  • Brucek | 15 Sep 2011, 11:03 AM Agree 0
    My only concern comes with Valex doing a desktop at $370000 and in the comparable sales was a property 2 doors up that sold in April 2011 for $385000 and needs a full renovation inside and upgrade outside to come anywhere close to my clients property. The comparable sale said "Superior property with superior finish" yet they didn't even go inside the subject property ar the one 2 doors up. I then requested a full valuation and it came in at $400000. We have had to accept this as Valex's dispute process relies on us doing all the legwork.
  • Ray | 15 Sep 2011, 11:07 AM Agree 0
    I refer to valuers as DEAL KILLERS. If there is an arms length contract for purchase, with a local buyer, to me that should form 80% of valuation. Still they value them under contract comparing new properties to almost knock downs or the odd desperate sale. We should dispute the valuations more often and more aggressivly. How dare Valex suggest such a draconian approach.
  • IanS | 15 Sep 2011, 11:08 AM Agree 0
    Too many times a valuation has come in low ans it does not enable the deal. Move the deal to another lender and get a new valuation and a completely different amount. And they wonder why we challenge. When was the last time you had a valuation come in higher than you expected? Will never happen as all their interested in is getting paid for often doing a poor job and then covering their own backside due to PI. When valuers can be held accountable for low valuations and not just too high then i will much happier.
  • Nick | 15 Sep 2011, 11:09 AM Agree 0
    I recently had a valex ordered valuation come in $80,000 less than the sale price of 1 year before. We contested it and got a copy of the report. The valuer had noted that it was a one bedroom unit when it was a two bedroom with a sunroom. It took us two weeks to get the report corrected so that the application could proceed. For as long as valex provides this sub-standard service, I will continue to contest and question their valuations.
  • Xavier Quenon | 15 Sep 2011, 11:18 AM Agree 0
    Valuation disputes rarely come from just a conservative valuation amount. It is the inconsistency between valuations and valuers opinions that spark this lack of confidence from both brokers and applicants in the quality of the assessments put out by valuers.
    Other factors that push for valuation scrutiny are inaccurate information, measurements and inclusions noted on reports, comparable sales not that comparable, ill research into influencing factors and local area attributes.. too many mistakes are being made.
    When the whole system relies on the opinion of a single person, the valuer, to determine whether a sale/purchase comes through or a refinance that could save thousands a year in interest, it is no wonder that HEAVY scrutiny and emphasis is put on valuaers and the valuations they bing out.
    Just telling brokers to accept it is a very simplistic approach.
    It seems to me these comments could only be amde the day that valuers are doing a perfect job and I dont think this is the case at present
  • Perth Broker | 15 Sep 2011, 11:20 AM Agree 0
    I have to agree with all of the comments above. Unfortunately our valuers have become the "untouchables" of our industry when in fact most of the valuers who dare to identify themselves to brokers or have a dialogue with broker are in fact University graduates who in many cases have not even purchased a property of their own. They lack people skills when dealing with real estate agents and customers - they generally take the holier than though approach - and treat the customers and agents as inferior to them.
  • Brett | 15 Sep 2011, 11:20 AM Agree 0
    Three valuations questioned in 18 months and each one successfully appealed and the common denominator is Valex issuing the job to valuers that are not based in the area and who do not have knowledge of that particular area.
    Valex is not a valuer, thay simply a clearing house for lenders and is protecting its business model.
    Use due diligence and if you smell a rat question it as half the time I have found the valuer viewing the property is not the person signing off on the valuation.
  • Kerry | 15 Sep 2011, 11:32 AM Agree 0
    Valuers are the ones bringing the market down. The accepted purchase price should be the true indication of what someone is prepared to pay, not a lesser amount given by a valuer.
  • michellecoleman | 15 Sep 2011, 11:41 AM Agree 0
    I would love to comment about not disputing valuations. I agree that there is no point to disputing the valuations as they never change them but I think it is totally of the mark that the valuers are right in the first instance.

    I can give examples that different valuers give totally different valuations amounts on the same property valued at the same time.

    I have one example where one property which has been valued 3 times by 2 separate valuers on the valex panel and one with NAB and got a totally different result.
    This is a purchase and not a refinance – so this is what the market is paying for these properties & not the clients interpretation of what their current property is worth.

    Home & Land Purchase Price $342,000

    ING First valuation $300,000
    HSL 2nd valuation $322,000
    NAB Valuation $290,000

    The same type of property purchase by another client has had varying results also.
    I have multiple examples – which are mainly land and construction but they should be all be using the same information????
    But I do have established examples also where you go from one valuer to the next and get a much different result.

    How can we then accept that the valuer is just being conservative if there is such variations from one valuer to another.

    This inconsistency of the valuers is costing the lenders, brokers and the client time and money as we can’t rely 100% on the valuation as it being right in the first instance as per his comment. If I relied on that fact many of my clients would have been stuck if we didn’t approach another lender or valuer.
    This also affects clients credit ratings as another credit checks are being performed

    If the valuers were consistent we would understand & accept their valuation reports. It would definitely save a lot of rework and time wasting for our business our clients.

    I would welcome the opportunity to sit down with ValEx and show him all the examples.
  • Eugene Skliar " Nova Caital" | 15 Sep 2011, 11:41 AM Agree 0
    While some properties have decline in values or vendors have unrealistic expectations. It often the case of Valuers taking a very conservative approach and lower valuation up to 20% in some instances because they do not want to take any risk, if market is volatile and can rapidly decreased. All that clients and brokers want
    is fair and reasonable market Valuation based on comparable sales and historical Data and not purposely lowered valuation so Valuer minimised responsibility and never been pursued by the Lender.
  • David | 15 Sep 2011, 11:48 AM Agree 0
    The incentive for Valuers is to Value low. It is their safest position and they get paid the same regardless of the outcome. I'm currently holding two valuations for vacant land being purchased for $366,500. One at contract price and the other at $300,000. That's a difference of more than 20%! Valuers do regularly get it wrong and it would be neglegent on our part not to dispute these substandard valuations.
  • Patrick | 15 Sep 2011, 11:48 AM Agree 0
    In the case of a property transfer valuer rely largely on the agreed price as between a willing seller and a willing buyer. For refinance no such guidence is available and a valuation is at best an educated guess. No two properties are identical and unless valuers physically inspect each comparable used they are guessing. Erratum est humane and nothing has changed in 2000 years. For valuers to insist that their estimate is scientifically acurate is profoundly arrogant.
  • RobEgan | 15 Sep 2011, 12:05 PM Agree 0
    My office recently submitted 2 deals to a major lender, that uses ValEx services, for the purchase of land and construction of houses in the same location in a developing area of Melbourne. Same builder but different developers. In both instances the ValEx valuer valued both properties $30,000 less on the construction costs compared to the building contract. The deals were then submitted to another major lender, who does not use ValEx, who's registered panel valuer valued the properties at $5,000 and $3,000 more than the actual total cost of the land purchase and the building costs.???? On another deal submitted to a lender using ValEx there was a difference of $200,000 less on a property at Inverloch between the ValEx valuer and the lender's panel valuer that does not use ValEx valuation services. Why shouldn't ValEx valuers be questioned where there is such disparity between the contract price and the valuation amount or where the customers estimate is substantially different than the valuation amount. Does ValEx think it is infallible and beyond questioning or reproach?? I have access to RP Data and can locate any recent sales that can assist is justifying the valuation amount that the valuer has used. I can also find different recent sales that could justify the contract price or a different/higher valuation figure than that given. I have achieved some moderate success from time to time in having the valuer increase his initial figure using RPData stats, but never to the level necessary to make the deal work. The first and third disputes were unsuccessful and we are awaiting the result of the second dispute without much hope of success. Maybe the lenders that use ValEx should also be questioning ValEx valuers policies and perhaps we as brokers should not use lenders that use ValEx??? After all we are working to achieve the best outcome for our clients and valuation shortfalls do tend to cause our clients and ourselves a lot of grief and a lot of wasted time for all parties.
  • MIchaelMcK | 15 Sep 2011, 12:25 PM Agree 0
    1-2% of the time they are wrong???

    The sad truth is even in the face of hard evidence a valuer will not change their wrong figure to a realistic figure, as it means admitting there has been a mistake made.

    Valuers would get it wrong more than 20% of the time, this being conservative too. We lose our licenses for being wrong and incompetent, maybe this is an industry that could use better practices and regulation.
  • BCentral | 15 Sep 2011, 12:33 PM Agree 0
    I can't believe we are being told to not dispute valuations! Most valuers are the most un-coperative breed I have ever had the displeasure in dealing with. I agree with most comments posted here. It's amazing how these guys will be begging for business on one hand and slapping you with the other. Most mortgage industry professionals have been around long enough and generally work in a territory and see what houses are selling for because we write the business. To tell us that we shouldn't dispute the decision is an insult. You should value properties properly and help the market recover.
  • sjncheng | 15 Sep 2011, 12:35 PM Agree 0
    I have been in both finance & real estate for some time & the crazy valuing i have seen beggars belief. Take the time i had a valuation on a property through a lender that was terribly undervalued. We approached another lender who didn't say who they were using. In the end it was the same valuing firm however different person. The valuation difference was $75K. When the manager of the valuing firm was questioned on this as to which one was right. To our amazement he said he supports both. How the hell do you support both!! Please note to all brokers out there just as someone can be sued if they over value i have been hearing stirrings (via credit ombudsman) that if a property is undervalued & the client can not complete costing them say their 10% deposit. If the lender will not allow a second valuer to be used & the client losses their deposit. That if after this the client pays for their own & it comes in at a level that would have allowed the settlement. The client is in their rights to seek legal action for loss of damage due to the bank not acting responsibly to minimise any possible loss to the client. Apparently it is not just the bank that has the right to protect themselves. As they are not allowed to place someone in a position of financial loss & refusing a second value in the situation where someone may not be able to complete is being watched by credit ombudsman. It will only take a few of these puppies to go through for the valuers to sit up & take notice that they better be more accurate. In fairness these poor fellows only get paid $200 to do a job they used to get $600 for. If you want a thorough valuation done then clients need to be educated that they need to pay at least $400 to get someone to spend real time on it.
  • Mick Ward | 15 Sep 2011, 12:39 PM Agree 0
    There would be hundreds of Finance Brokers that have the evidence to slam these claims. These comments suggest ValEx have little understanding of the knock on effect and impact an error in the estimated current market value on a report can have. These errors can destroy valuable relationships with clients and referrers, as well as turn our clients plans upside down. We merely ask that a professional job is done for the professional fee that Valex receives. There is far too much inconsistency in the profession and you must understand that it leaves other industry players, like brokers, real estate agents and even lenders at times, with no choice but to srutinise the reports. One can only hope these comments are read and they realise there are issues their own back yard that require focus.
  • Mark | 15 Sep 2011, 12:59 PM Agree 0
    The thing that irritates me is that on every occasion the valuer gets paid when a deal cannot proceed to to a low valuation the Broker,Bank,Solicitors etc get paid nothing but the valuer will still collect his fee, the inconsistance that we see on a daily basis is incredible and as many have commented already we see valuations come in 30k to 100k from different valuers so for the chief of Valex to say accept the first decision is just simply out of touch
  • Colin Sheppard | 15 Sep 2011, 01:24 PM Agree 0
    There are so many examples that can be provided to further support Michelle Coleman's examples. The whole ValEx system can be best explained with one simple saying - 'If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys'
  • Alwyn Beardmore | 15 Sep 2011, 01:26 PM Agree 0
    I don't quite see what Valex adds to our industry but perhaps I simply don't know enough of what they do. Coming to the point of valuations however - 1 valuation company 2 weeks ago valued a place at $300,000 for one bank and yesterday valued the same place at $280,000 for a different bank. $20,000 in 2 weeks seems a bit much. Let me throw in that we contracted another valuation company who valued the same property 1 week ago at $340,000.
  • Daniel | 15 Sep 2011, 02:11 PM Agree 0
    We have had on numerous occasions Valuers that don't do their research on comparable sales. When the valuer has not listed any sales that are comparable it only takes us a matter of minutes to find comparable recent sales using RPData. Seems a bit lazy.
  • iand | 15 Sep 2011, 02:54 PM Agree 0
    Don't panic gents, I have had the unpleasurable experience with a Valex member who rang the vendor for the keys to inspect a vacant block of land. Not once but 3 times.
    I also had the same house and land package valued with 10 days by the exact same valuation company and valuer to go even lower than the first valuation by $25000. Here's a good one. House and land package in Brisbane, valuer advised that the block had 30cm of water pass over it during the floods. I supplied pictures of the block at the height of the floods and not a drop of water was anywhere to be seen. I even had affidavits signed by the neighbours on either side of this block to confirm not water went across or came near the block. This was a Valex member, that was later found not to have left his desk to give this valuation. The client pulled out based on this information and I now hear the developer is taking this particular valuer to court.
    These people are not professional in anyway and I agree with others in this forum who have suggested valuation companies get paid only if the deal is successful, or at least part of their remuneration be made up from a positive result.
  • Andrew Aickin | 15 Sep 2011, 05:44 PM Agree 0
    The reason Valex states that the number of corrected or reassed valuations with higher amounts is so low is that valuers never admit to getting it wrong. If you contest a valuation it is sent back to the same valuer and their office to be revisited. Of course they are not going to change their report. How is this keeping anyone accountable??? Where are the check stops that should be in place for something so important??? Valex need to have a good hard look at their busienss and their business partners.
  • Warwick Plumsted | 15 Sep 2011, 08:38 PM Agree 0
    I have a valuation where the client estimated 2 million. I estimated 1.8 to 1.9. Valuer general was at $1.75 land value.
    Due to circumstance, there was only one lender who the client fitted in terms of credit criteria.
    The Valuation came in at 900K
    It was 4 hectare. I went through and got the last 12 months sales and worked out the average price per hectare. The value came in at 1.8 Land. The 2 home were not great.
    It was also the best highest out of flood zone piece of land in the district.

    I disputed the valuation. Valex sent the dispute to the person who did it. It was an inner city valuer doing acreage on the fringe of Sydney.
    The value wasn’t even in line with the sales he supplied in his report. I had initially assumed the value was a typo, was missing the 1 at the front
    I ended up paying for a second valuation which came in at 1.8mil
    Lender would not accept second val, so deal died
    What did all this cost? for me, $6000 plus trail.
    The client was forced to sell as he needed the money for another project, so he sold at a bad time. Sale price was $1.77 million.
    The original valuer was out by $870,000. That is out by almost 100% of his original value. Half what it was actually worth.
    The rental assessment range was $350-$450. The property had two houses on it. One was untenanted at the time, but the other was rented for $400 PW. So the assumption was that the second was worth a max of $50 PW

    Maybe the head of vales should look at the process of the disputed valuation, because sending it back to the individual to audit there own work is badly floored. Would the ASIC allow us to self audit if there was a complaint?
  • Tony Broker Perth | 15 Sep 2011, 10:17 PM Agree 0
    SACK HOOPER - I agree with most the comments made previously - Valuers need to be accountable. There are many examples where they have made mistakes or their valuations are questionable, yet they dont change when disputed. Maybe we should be lodging complaints with an Ombudsman type service!!!
  • David | 16 Sep 2011, 12:37 PM Agree 0
    One year ago a client bought a property at auction for $502K. Valex valued it at $500K (-0.4%)and would not move on this, pushing my client into LMI. Last month, only one year later, after a marital beakdown the very same property was valued by the very same Valex valuer at $560K - and this is after property prices have fallen. We talk about increasing the professionalism of brokers, but I think there's a big case for greater professionalism with valuers. Valuations have now become one of the biggest issues in loan writing as they can make or break a deal for a little as 0.4% variance based on a combination of comparative sales data and subjective opinion. The arrogance of Valex to state that they are right all the time is an indictment on the industry.
  • valuers comment | 21 Sep 2011, 11:20 PM Agree 0
    If you want a professional service pay a professional fee! most valuers need to inspect and complete 6 reports per day to sustain a reasonable wage, and that all has to be done in some very difficult market conditions. most of the senarios you bring up are valid most concerning for the industry is the discrepencies between valuations, but this has to be viewed through the context that the market is never perfect and on any day a property can have a value range of up to 10% ie the market is never in perfect equalibrium.

    As for the comment that a valuer should only be paid if a deal is sucessfull just defies logic (and devalues your other more relavent concerns as just valuer bashing) To have someone who is truely independant then have a financial incentive not to be independant but instead be an advocate si obsurd adn uneducated.
    Some of your concerns are realavent, the realy smart opertators know the valuers in their area and work with them. secondly if you dont agree (genuinly not just in the context of a need figure to get a deal over the line)will get a second opinion, no diffent if you went to a doctor and didn't agree or a machanic ....

    Most valuers dont deliberatly value low like many of you point out we get paid no matter what so there is no real incentive to value high or low, most staff valuers dont get sued so are not scared of such (it is the company/employer and pi insurnce company that gets sued). From what i see most valuers dont change valuations because they have made there assessment in good faith and most information given to them is pretty poor that there is no compeling reason to change it, furthermore the perception is that they aren't being paid to re look at a job, so in some respects valex is correct you are better off not chalenging the first report untill or unless you have second opinion that indictaes that the first is not right
  • Papery | 22 Sep 2011, 01:34 PM Agree 0
    Still doesnt explain why a simple arms length negotiated Contract for sale (you know willing buyer/willing seller no one under duress etc) on a residential suburban block, with the contract provided to the valuer can be valued $50k by the valuer & generally supported by nearby comparable sales for similiar pptys.
  • Valuer | 07 Jan 2012, 09:12 AM Agree 0
    Goto love broker's who blame a valuer when they ask the client what the property is worth & then add another 20-40K+. I did a valuation in Brunswick where the valuation was re-photocopied without critical a paragraph to an over-heating apartment market. Then (some brokers) complain about the variance in prices in property when they "shop around" with different valuers & complain about variance. A valuation is an opinion based on sales, very unlikely that a Valuer is actually a fortune teller & will hit the same mark as another. There are alot of deals where people over-extend themselves, fraudulent transactions when clients sell property to their wife 12 months later for an extra 120K in a declining market. Plenty of sales where the client has no deposit & loads the sales price up with no estate agent involved. There are genuine times when a quality broker will challenge for good reason and they will get listened to by a valuer but many times we have "cry wolf" brokers loading up estimates & we know they do this because we do chq way over the top estimates with the clients. Ironic commentry when brokers tell valuers to lift our game. "Cry Wolf" brokers loading up clients estimates to get over-extened loans through & increases the risk of default is not doing your clients a favour to get "your" trailer through. Market forces give you a limited time span not to mention section 51 of the trade practices act. There are good brokers out there who are respected by Valuers (vise versa) Irony - we have a job because of greed & dishonsety. Would you loan 200K of your hard earned money based on a brokers assessment on Value when they have a vested "trailer" interest in the deal? There are great brokers out there & you have my respect but I have no respect for the dishonest ones who dig the clients into deeper holes :-(
  • wayne armstrong | 08 Jan 2012, 10:53 PM Agree 0
    Mr Valuer
    those comments are not even close
    So if we pay you more you will lift your valuations are you on Drugs
    Valuers are not there to work out the finance
    It does not matter if its a purchase or refinace
    you SHOULD not be involved in what the finance is about
    Anyway desktop valuations are just around the corner
    I know lots of valuers and there great guys
    You should Leave your job tomomorrow
    and leave it to the pro;s becauce you are not one
    and what are you even doing on this website anyway
    Oh and state your name braveheart nextime
  • Property Owner | 22 Jun 2012, 12:49 PM Agree 0
    I had a property valued by VALEX lately and the valuer took 3 weeks to complete the valuation. Its a subdivision and if I had 2 titles the property is valued at 940k at least, but I cant get the 2nd title until the new unit at the back is completed, that is what the council says but I have already applied for the the subdivision. Anyway the valuer valued the property as 2 houses on title at $630k, been currently council valued the property with one house at $44000, new house construction cost is $270k which leads to total of $640k loan where the loan exceeds the value. I was told by the lender and real estate agents that the 2 housed on title should be valued at $800k at least. If any one know how to dispute the valuation please advise.
  • Ewan | 11 Mar 2017, 01:51 AM Agree 0
    CBRE is totally a dick recently, I have a property with 2 systems valued at $765k and 700k at high confidence. CBRE came back with only $625k, almost $150k difference, what a loser, DO NOT USE CBRE!!!!!!!!
Post a reply