0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

alleged negligent valuation new build residential property

25 July 2012

Test case RICS Red Book amendments

In this case Platform Funding Limited (PFL) sued Anderson & Associates Limited (AA) together with three other firms of surveyors (who had settled their actions pre-trial) for alleged negligent overvaluation of a new build flat.

PFL claimed they would not have advanced money to the borrower if it had not been for the overvaluation by AA. PFL claimed £99k made up of £75k damages and £24k lost funding costs. PFL also sued Bluestone Solicitors - its conveyancer for the transaction.

AA claimed contribution from Bluestone, as well as alleging contributory negligence against PFL.

This case stemmed from the dishonest marketing of 84 long leased residential properties in 2005/2006. There had already been a criminal trial involving parties other than those involved in the civil litigation case.

The scheme involved a company, Atrex, purchasing the flats for one price and then reselling them at an inflated price the same day so as to make a profit. The funds for the purchases/resales were obtained from funders such as PFL who provided mortgages to the second purchasers, but were unaware of the underlying scheme.

Various surveyors when valuing the flats on behalf of lenders were provided with 3 values of comparable properties on the same site by site agents for the developer Persimmon. They were never advised of any incentives or discounts that may have existed and nor, it was held, would such information have been provided even if requested.

Andersons maintained that the valuation by their surveyor was fair and reasonable when made in 2006 considering the state of the market and claimed that they were not negligent. They also alleged contributory negligence in that if proper procedures and checks were in place when the property was being purchased, the transaction would not have proceeded.

The flat in question was purchased in September 2006 for an open market value of £275k but was later repossessed and sold a year or so later for a fraction under £200k.

It was common ground between the parties that the market had fallen by the time of this sale. The expert valuers disagreed as to whether or not it had already turned by July 2006, when the flat was valued by AA . The purchaser had obtained a loan at a loan of £247,495 but failed to make any repayments.

Amendments had been made to the Red Book on 1 June 2006; the new guidelines dictated a holistic approach to the valuation exercise. This included extensive use of comparables to include any incentives, the market in the area, prices realised for similar new properties on other developments as well as the second-hand market and other information considered relevant by valuers.

No evidence was found that the AA surveyor considered anything other than the comparables of new properties in his valuation. Nevertheless it was held that a reasonable valuer would not be at be at fault if it did not ascertain the existence of a sub sale, the identity of sub purchase or the true price of the original purchase, where it could not have obtained knowledge (whilst exercising skill and care) of these matters.

Furthermore it was found that a valuer could not be faulted for using professional intuition where market prices had changed.

The court held that the cause of the entire loss by PFL arose from:

  • dishonest marketing and sales
  • the collusive manner in which solicitors conducted conveyancing, including various breaches of money-laundering, Law Society and Council of Money Lending rules
  • the fact that there were clear restrictions on providing information to valuers (except selected comparables)

It was also held that the scope of the AA surveyors retainer was to provide a valuation according to the Red Book. AA were not retained to provide a valuation of a property not sold on the open market where the comparables had been dishonestly inflated. Therefore, the entire loss incurred by PFL was overwhelmingly caused by others and not the valuation by the AA surveyor.

As to AA s allegation of contributory negligence, it was held that there was no demonstration the sub prime underwriting by PFL was undertaken without reasonable skill and care, though independent lending expert evidence was presented. The court dismissed this allegation because AA had not been negligent and had not caused any of PFL s loss and therefore there could be no contributory negligence.

AA were awarded indemnity costs, having made a Calderbank offer of a walk away which PFL did not accept and clearly failed to beat. AA was entitled to a judgement against Bluestone in the contribution proceedings and also awarded indemnity costs.

Citation 2012 EWHC 1853(QB).

training and events

19May

Regeneration review - where are we now? Online

We are delighted to invite you to our regeneration webinar, where we will be looking at four keys areas of regeneration; public law, planning, construction and real estate.

View event

27May

In-house lawyers forum - 27 May 2021 Online

We look at the latest Covid-19 employment status, IR35 developments and commercial updates including the use of crypto assets and cookie claims.

View event

focus on...

Legal updates

Wigan v Scullindale – local authority break rights in long development leases

The High Court has recently declared that a landlord’s break right in a long lease – expressed as being exercisable ‘at any time’ following a tenant default – had been validly exercised, even though the default in question had occurred 16 months prior to the break notice being served.

View

University spinouts and joint ventures – developing your in-house expertise

Catch up on this on-demand video where intellectual property expert Selina Hinchliffe and corporate specialist Sam Sharp discussed spinouts and joint ventures providing significant commercial opportunities for universities to capitalise on their research and innovation expertise.

View

Legal updates

Landmark Court of Protection ruling that it is not unlawful for carers to help individuals with learning disabilities and mental disorders to visit sex workers

On 30 April 2021, the Court of Protection considered whether carers would be in breach of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (“SOA”) by making practical arrangements for a 27-year-old man with autism to have contact with a sex worker.

View

Legal updates

The future of care - round table summary

Read our summary of the insights gathered from our recent roundtables dedicated to the future of care and looking into various areas of the care sector from elderly care to learning disabilities and from retirement living to supported living.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up