From: "Tim" 
Newsgroups: uk.finance
Subject: Re: Incorrect Mortgage Valuation
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 16:45:02 +0000 (UTC)

> >"john boyle" wrote
> >> I have come across many examples where the valuer has already
> >> surveyed the property and has agreed to provide a valuation for a
> >> mortgagee on the mortgagees form for the payment of a smaller fee,
> >> but the fee is not usually reduced substantially because of the
responsibility
> >> the valuer takes on when answering the 'suitable security' question.
> >
> Tim  writes
> >Why doesn't the surveyor have a similar responsibility
> >towards the purchaser, who instructed the surveyor originally
> >and paid *even more* money to get a fuller report??
>

"john boyle" wrote
> He does. That is not in question.

OK, so when you said "the fee is not usually reduced substantially because
of the responsibility the valuer takes on ...", and you now agree that the
valuer had *already* taken on this responsibility (when doing the full
report on the house for the purchaser) -- why the substantial extra fee??

> Tim  writes
> >Well, presumably simply so that they can advertise "95% maximum" (sounds
> >good to someone who only has enough for a 5% deposit) - even though the
true
> >maximum is not that high!
>
"john boyle" wrote
> I still cant see how this benefits the lender ...

Doesn't *advertising* a higher maximum LTV get more punters to apply?
Doesn't that benefit the lender?
Doesn't *requiring* a lower LTV help remove future bad debts?  Doesn't that
benefit the lender?