Failure to fully inspect a property and not detecting construction faults, which should have been reported upon. For example, a valuer failed to inspect a part of a of a commercial building which had considerable asbestos material. In a slightly different scenario, a valuer did not fully inspect every room in a residential building, after having been told that the room was locked and the key had been lost. He did not refer to this event in his report. It subsequently became known that the room contained cannabis plants.

Failure to provide clear reasoning and analysis to support how the valuer arrived at the opinion of value. For example, Lindsay has seen several reports that have not set out the valuer’s clear articulation of how that valuer reached the valuation figure having regard to comparable sales evidence obtained. Simple comparative statements between the subject property and comparable sales information relied upon such as “superior”, “similar” and or “inferior “without description to support such opinions. This has even occurred in some PropertyPro valuations.

Claims arising due to inadequate “field notes”, especially contemporaneous notes of communications occurring prior to, during and even after the valuation process. Regrettably these have occurred in many valuations leaving the valuer exposed to trying to recall by memory events that might have occurred years before. The obvious downside of this poor and unacceptable practice (and in breach of the API Rules of Professional Conduct), is that if the valuer’s client has kept records, a Court will almost always prefer the client’s written evidence over the valuer’s moral evidence.

Failure to verify as correct information and/or advice provided by third parties to the valuer, who then relies on that advice in preparing a valuation. For example, a valuer in one case Lindsay conducted, provided the valuer with an expert geotechnical engineer’s report which was ultimately found to be flawed. The valuer expressly endorsed the geotechnical report as correct and as such used its findings to reach a valuation figure. Settlement of the claim upon the valuer was settled when both parties were of the same view that the valuer had misrepresented the correctness of the expert report, a fact that a court would have found or that the valuer would have had to admit in proceedings.

Failure to adequately supervise and appropriately instruct more junior valuers allocated with a valuation to complete. One example of this was that Lindsay acted in a case where an unprepared, inexperienced and unsupervised valuer was despatched by his employer to value a very unusual property in an unfamiliar location. The court found negligence of the employer valuer as having sent “An inexperienced valuer” to undertake a task he should never have been assigned.

Failure to stick to reporting upon the facts relied upon substantiating the value. Instead providing unsubstantiated personal opinion language in support of the value derived. Examples have existed where valuers have included very personal statements /opinions of their obvious “feelings” for a property . Statements/opinions such as “An excellent and stunning property”, “Guilt edge financial tenants”, “superbly constructed” are amongst a number of descriptions that go well beyond what a valuer should be saying to justify a value. It creates an impression of impaired professional judgement and personal bias.