The Rent Review Specialist
A different perspective
17/11/2015
Amongst my spare-time (if only!) interests is photography. I became interested in photography as a quick way to write poetry. I wrote reams of poems during my teens, my writing style a combination. For further reading, please visit LandlordZone.
Sentiment v Technicalities
23/04/2014
With commercial property rent review and lease renewal when practical help from a surveyor is sought, as distinct from seeking advice, there are two types of client: …For further reading, please visit LandlordZone newsletter issue 23 - click here
Location, location, location
12/04/2014
Investment performance despite any resistance by the tenant. Why would the tenant resist? …For further reading, please visit LandlordZone - click here
April Fool or Successful Investor
01/04/2014
Successful investment is about judicious choice and timing: what to buy, how much to pay, how to manage, when and how to sell…for further reading, please visit LandlordZone - click here
Buyers of property to let less deserving of protection
01/06/2011
Per Scullion v Bank of Scotland plc (t/a Colleys) [2011] the Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court decision that for buy-to-let residential property the valuer was liable to the purchaser.
The CA held that although the valuer had been negligent and the purchaser had relied upon the valuer’s report (amongst other advice) when deciding to proceed, the purchaser did not establish foreseeability of damage or a sufficient degree of proximity between himself and the valuer.
Nor did the purchaser show that it would be "fair, just and reasonable" to impose (on the valuer) a duty of care to the purchaser. The Court held there were important distinctions to be made between valuations for buy-to-let purposes and those made for home buyers.
The court commented that those buying properties to let, were less "deserving of protection by the common law against the risk of negligence than those buying to occupy as their residence."
The CA held that although the valuer had been negligent and the purchaser had relied upon the valuer’s report (amongst other advice) when deciding to proceed, the purchaser did not establish foreseeability of damage or a sufficient degree of proximity between himself and the valuer.
Nor did the purchaser show that it would be "fair, just and reasonable" to impose (on the valuer) a duty of care to the purchaser. The Court held there were important distinctions to be made between valuations for buy-to-let purposes and those made for home buyers.
The court commented that those buying properties to let, were less "deserving of protection by the common law against the risk of negligence than those buying to occupy as their residence."
Conflict of Interest
01/09/1985
In a period of 'retailing revolution,' one wonders how advisers to pension funds can be so confident that the rate of growth essential to justify low initial yields on purchase price will materialise at the review date.
Many funds are already becoming increasingly disillusioned with their agents' failure to achieve the anticipated rental value. When the same agencies also act for multiple retailers, how do they reconcile their objective for the lowest rental when they may also be acting for the landlord of adjoining property with a brief to get the highest rental?
This conflict exists for all valuers, likely to receive instructions to advise landlords and tenants in the same area, but it surmountable when there is no vested inyerest in the progress of the investment.
Detailed knowledge of a multiple retailers' property affairs must be very useful when advising a fund on investment purchase (not to mention on the company's take-over potential) and the solution appears to aim for a balance, tilted in favour of the landlord, whereby 'comparable evidence,' to back a recommendation to settle, is presented in such a form as to convince the tenant that the conclusion is indeed the right figure, in line with 'the market.'
I cannot understand the business philosophy of major multiple retailers who appear unconcerned that their retained advisers actively market a positive involvement in the investment market. Surely it is better to use a selection of different valuers or, at worst, to deal with negotiations internally.
Many funds are already becoming increasingly disillusioned with their agents' failure to achieve the anticipated rental value. When the same agencies also act for multiple retailers, how do they reconcile their objective for the lowest rental when they may also be acting for the landlord of adjoining property with a brief to get the highest rental?
This conflict exists for all valuers, likely to receive instructions to advise landlords and tenants in the same area, but it surmountable when there is no vested inyerest in the progress of the investment.
Detailed knowledge of a multiple retailers' property affairs must be very useful when advising a fund on investment purchase (not to mention on the company's take-over potential) and the solution appears to aim for a balance, tilted in favour of the landlord, whereby 'comparable evidence,' to back a recommendation to settle, is presented in such a form as to convince the tenant that the conclusion is indeed the right figure, in line with 'the market.'
I cannot understand the business philosophy of major multiple retailers who appear unconcerned that their retained advisers actively market a positive involvement in the investment market. Surely it is better to use a selection of different valuers or, at worst, to deal with negotiations internally.