As a risk mitigation measure, it’s difficult to argue that this was not the right call.In retrospect, there were some regrettable examples of the relationship contributing to the wrong lending decisions being made.
This didn’t help the valuer’s or intermediary’s credibility and the effects for some borrowers were serious, so the situation is unlikely to change in the near future.
Now, lenders or their panel managers distribute work on a more random, arm’s length basis and this is considered best practice.But the old system persists in Scotland and this anomaly is difficult to explain if randomisation is perceived to equate to best practice.
One unintended consequence of the change is perhaps a widening of the distance between intermediaries and valuers.
Rightly, communication regarding any live cases should travel via the lender. But this doesn’tmean more general discussion of local markets and wider issues cannotoccur.
It must be better to start considering applications with an informed view of likely values and underwriting or geographical issues than to be uninformed.
Good valuers should be able to grow the knowledge base of brokers as this can reduce the need to deal later with more time-critical queries.As always, it’s good to talk.