The Rent Review Specialist
Valuation
Market Rent
There are two types of market value: the capital value and the rental value. The matters to be taken into account for the market rental for purpose of a rent review will be defined in the actual lease and/or by reference to case-law; the market rent for a tenancy renewal is defined in s.34 and s35 Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
For the capital value, the definition of "market value" has become institutionalised by the International Valuation Standards Council ("IVSC") and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors ("RICS"). To the IVSC,“market value” means “the estimated amount for which a property should exchange on the date of valuation between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s length transaction after proper marketing wherein the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion. "The market value shall be documented in a transparent and clear manner". The IVSC make it clear that a “willing seller” in that context is simply a seller motivated to sell at the best price obtainable on the valuation date.
In the Red Book, the RICS manual for valuers, the open market value ("OMV") is the best price obtainable in a transaction completed on the valuation date based upon the following assumptions:
(i) a willing seller (a hypothetical owner who is neither eager nor reluctant i.e. not forced but not at a price which suits only him/her).
(ii) prior to the valuation, a reasonable period to market the property and complete all the necessary legal formalities was available.
(iii) during this period, the state of the market was the same as at the date of valuation.
(iv) any bid from a special purchaser is excluded.(vi) all parties acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion
In 1994, agreed with the British Bankers Association, the RICS Valuation Guidance Note introduced "Estimated Realisation Price", ("ERP") a basis of valuation to be used solely for loan valuation purposes. ERP is identical to OMV in representing an exchange price in the market place, but it differs on a number of points, two of which are fundamental. ‘Reasonably expected’ is retained in the ERP definition but the two fundamental points are:
(i) the marketing period commences on the date of valuation, with the sale completed after a reasonable marketing period to be specified by the valuer.
(ii) the market is dynamic and is not assumed to be static over the marketing period.
The opinion must be informed and given by a knowledgeable and experienced person. Valuation is not just a science, but also an art. To arrive at an opinion of value, a surveyor considers a host of factors, including intuition. In my opinion, surveyors that ignore intuition do so at their peril. The market is not always logical. Prediction may be frowned upon as esoteric, but knowing what is going to happen or at least attempting to forecast realistically is, in my opinion, just as important as basing opinion on the past or present. However, because many surveyors are focussed more on the past - for example, talking about when the market returns to 'normal' - or prejudiced by their own experience in acting for retailers whose business model depends on being able to rent shops for next to nothing - the future prospects are often ignored.
The market comprises buyers and sellers. Although surveyors do not make the market, it is the surveyor's interpretation of the behaviour and attitude of buyers and sellers that will have an often a profound influence upon the state and direction of the market. The reason surveyors have so much say is that, unlike the seller and/or buyer's opinion which is likely to be subjective and sentimental, the surveyor's opinion is objective. With 'subjective' the seller or buyer will assess the proposition in relation to the buyer's individual requirements, whereas with 'objective' the surveyor will assess the proposition in relation to the market.
In theory, objectivity is neutral; in practice it may be bias. Without training, and even then it can be difficult, it is virtually impossible for a human being to be emotionally detached. The partisan of professional standards may also overshadow. For example, chartered surveyors, as members of an institution with a code of conduct, are subject to fear of a disciplinary committee or at worst expelled. It does not help that, from my observations, the RICS is prone to issuing and revising practice statements and guidance notes for its members after the event, rather than in anticipation of market trends. One difficulty I suspect is conflict of interest between valuation surveyors and their colleagues in investment departments, and quite possibly of shareholders where surveyors operate as public or private limited companies. Ultimately, the law and the view of the courts in case-law is paramount. To quote from a textbook of Professional Negligence, the authors Jackson and Powell state "a professional is not entitled slavishly to follow the provisions of a code of practice". Per PK Finans International (UK) Ltd v Andrew Downs and Co Ltd [1992], the court's reservations about the status of the RICS guidance notes are made apparent: "I suspect that they are as much for the protection of surveyors as anything else, in that they set out various recommendations which, if followed, it is hoped will protect the surveyor from the unpleasantness of being sued". In my view, where a surveyor has informed knowledge of the market there is a duty of care to anyone whom the surveyor is advising. When a surveyor has a feeling that all is not as it should be, to keep quiet and toe the party-line is not an option.
So, since there is a difference between the value of a property and as an investment, how does one go about separating the two values? The question is by no means that easy to answer. To begin with, it is a question of how far back one should go. Arguably, one should go back approximately 30 years to the time before buyer inexperience took hold and when there was a marked difference between yields in different parts of the country. If so then what has happened to the shop investment market in the after-math of the sub-prime crisis, ensuing recession and downturn generally (2008 onwards) could be said to be a return to the 'norm'. In other words, values nowadays are not on the low side because they have fallen from the peak, but have merely reverted to the rightful level. When that approach is adopted, prospects become a lot clearer.
For the capital value, the definition of "market value" has become institutionalised by the International Valuation Standards Council ("IVSC") and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors ("RICS"). To the IVSC,“market value” means “the estimated amount for which a property should exchange on the date of valuation between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s length transaction after proper marketing wherein the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion. "The market value shall be documented in a transparent and clear manner". The IVSC make it clear that a “willing seller” in that context is simply a seller motivated to sell at the best price obtainable on the valuation date.
In the Red Book, the RICS manual for valuers, the open market value ("OMV") is the best price obtainable in a transaction completed on the valuation date based upon the following assumptions:
(i) a willing seller (a hypothetical owner who is neither eager nor reluctant i.e. not forced but not at a price which suits only him/her).
(ii) prior to the valuation, a reasonable period to market the property and complete all the necessary legal formalities was available.
(iii) during this period, the state of the market was the same as at the date of valuation.
(iv) any bid from a special purchaser is excluded.(vi) all parties acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion
In 1994, agreed with the British Bankers Association, the RICS Valuation Guidance Note introduced "Estimated Realisation Price", ("ERP") a basis of valuation to be used solely for loan valuation purposes. ERP is identical to OMV in representing an exchange price in the market place, but it differs on a number of points, two of which are fundamental. ‘Reasonably expected’ is retained in the ERP definition but the two fundamental points are:
(i) the marketing period commences on the date of valuation, with the sale completed after a reasonable marketing period to be specified by the valuer.
(ii) the market is dynamic and is not assumed to be static over the marketing period.
The opinion must be informed and given by a knowledgeable and experienced person. Valuation is not just a science, but also an art. To arrive at an opinion of value, a surveyor considers a host of factors, including intuition. In my opinion, surveyors that ignore intuition do so at their peril. The market is not always logical. Prediction may be frowned upon as esoteric, but knowing what is going to happen or at least attempting to forecast realistically is, in my opinion, just as important as basing opinion on the past or present. However, because many surveyors are focussed more on the past - for example, talking about when the market returns to 'normal' - or prejudiced by their own experience in acting for retailers whose business model depends on being able to rent shops for next to nothing - the future prospects are often ignored.
The market comprises buyers and sellers. Although surveyors do not make the market, it is the surveyor's interpretation of the behaviour and attitude of buyers and sellers that will have an often a profound influence upon the state and direction of the market. The reason surveyors have so much say is that, unlike the seller and/or buyer's opinion which is likely to be subjective and sentimental, the surveyor's opinion is objective. With 'subjective' the seller or buyer will assess the proposition in relation to the buyer's individual requirements, whereas with 'objective' the surveyor will assess the proposition in relation to the market.
In theory, objectivity is neutral; in practice it may be bias. Without training, and even then it can be difficult, it is virtually impossible for a human being to be emotionally detached. The partisan of professional standards may also overshadow. For example, chartered surveyors, as members of an institution with a code of conduct, are subject to fear of a disciplinary committee or at worst expelled. It does not help that, from my observations, the RICS is prone to issuing and revising practice statements and guidance notes for its members after the event, rather than in anticipation of market trends. One difficulty I suspect is conflict of interest between valuation surveyors and their colleagues in investment departments, and quite possibly of shareholders where surveyors operate as public or private limited companies. Ultimately, the law and the view of the courts in case-law is paramount. To quote from a textbook of Professional Negligence, the authors Jackson and Powell state "a professional is not entitled slavishly to follow the provisions of a code of practice". Per PK Finans International (UK) Ltd v Andrew Downs and Co Ltd [1992], the court's reservations about the status of the RICS guidance notes are made apparent: "I suspect that they are as much for the protection of surveyors as anything else, in that they set out various recommendations which, if followed, it is hoped will protect the surveyor from the unpleasantness of being sued". In my view, where a surveyor has informed knowledge of the market there is a duty of care to anyone whom the surveyor is advising. When a surveyor has a feeling that all is not as it should be, to keep quiet and toe the party-line is not an option.
So, since there is a difference between the value of a property and as an investment, how does one go about separating the two values? The question is by no means that easy to answer. To begin with, it is a question of how far back one should go. Arguably, one should go back approximately 30 years to the time before buyer inexperience took hold and when there was a marked difference between yields in different parts of the country. If so then what has happened to the shop investment market in the after-math of the sub-prime crisis, ensuing recession and downturn generally (2008 onwards) could be said to be a return to the 'norm'. In other words, values nowadays are not on the low side because they have fallen from the peak, but have merely reverted to the rightful level. When that approach is adopted, prospects become a lot clearer.
Market Value
The definition of "market value" has become institutionalised by the International Valuation Standards Council ("IVSC") and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors ("RICS"). To the IVSC,“market value” means “the estimated amount for which a property should exchange on the date of valuation between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s length transaction after proper marketing wherein the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion. "The market value shall be documented in a transparent and clear manner". The IVSC make it clear that a “willing seller” in that context is simply a seller motivated to sell at the best price obtainable on the valuation date.
In the Red Book, the RICS manual for valuers, the open market value ("OMV") is the best price obtainable in a transaction completed on the valuation date based upon the following assumptions:
(i) a willing seller (a hypothetical owner who is neither eager nor reluctant i.e. not forced but not at a price which suits only him/her).
(ii) prior to the valuation, a reasonable period to market the property and complete all the necessary legal formalities was available.
(iii) during this period, the state of the market was the same as at the date of valuation.
(iv) any bid from a special purchaser is excluded.(vi) all parties acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion
In 1994, agreed with the British Bankers Association, the RICS Valuation Guidance Note introduced "Estimated Realisation Price", ("ERP") a basis of valuation to be used solely for loan valuation purposes. ERP is identical to OMV in representing an exchange price in the market place, but it differs on a number of points, two of which are fundamental. ‘Reasonably expected’ is retained in the ERP definition but the two fundamental points are:
(i) the marketing period commences on the date of valuation, with the sale completed after a reasonable marketing period to be specified by the valuer.
(ii) the market is dynamic and is not assumed to be static over the marketing period.
The opinion must be informed and given by a knowledgeable and experienced person. Valuation is not just a science, but also an art. To arrive at an opinion of value, a surveyor considers a host of factors, including intuition. In my opinion, surveyors that ignore intuition do so at their peril. The market is not always logical. Prediction may be frowned upon as esoteric, but knowing what is going to happen or at least attempting to forecast realistically is, in my opinion, just as important as basing opinion on the past or present. However, because many surveyors are focussed more on the past - for example, talking about when the market returns to 'normal' - or prejudiced by their own experience in acting for retailers whose business model depends on being able to rent shops for next to nothing - the future prospects are often ignored.
The market comprises buyers and sellers. Although surveyors do not make the market, it is the surveyor's interpretation of the behaviour and attitude of buyers and sellers that will have an often a profound influence upon the state and direction of the market. The reason surveyors have so much say is that, unlike the seller and/or buyer's opinion which is likely to be subjective and sentimental, the surveyor's opinion is objective. With 'subjective' the seller or buyer will assess the proposition in relation to the buyer's individual requirements, whereas with 'objective' the surveyor will assess the proposition in relation to the market.
In theory, objectivity is neutral; in practice it may be bias. Without training, and even then it can be difficult, it is virtually impossible for a human being to be emotionally detached. The partisan of professional standards may also overshadow. For example, chartered surveyors, as members of an institution with a code of conduct, are subject to fear of a disciplinary committee or at worst expelled. It does not help that, from my observations, the RICS is prone to issuing and revising practice statements and guidance notes for its members after the event, rather than in anticipation of market trends. One difficulty I suspect is conflict of interest between valuation surveyors and their colleagues in investment departments, and quite possibly of shareholders where surveyors operate as public or private limited companies. Ultimately, the law and the view of the courts in case-law is paramount. To quote from a textbook of Professional Negligence, the authors Jackson and Powell state "a professional is not entitled slavishly to follow the provisions of a code of practice". Per PK Finans International (UK) Ltd v Andrew Downs and Co Ltd [1992], the court's reservations about the status of the RICS guidance notes are made apparent: "I suspect that they are as much for the protection of surveyors as anything else, in that they set out various recommendations which, if followed, it is hoped will protect the surveyor from the unpleasantness of being sued". In my view, where a surveyor has informed knowledge of the market there is a duty of care to anyone whom the surveyor is advising. When a surveyor has a feeling that all is not as it should be, to keep quiet and toe the party-line is not an option.
So, since there is a difference between the value of a property and as an investment, how does one go about separating the two values? The question is by no means that easy to answer. To begin with, it is a question of how far back one should go. Arguably, one should go back approximately 30 years to the time before buyer inexperience took hold and when there was a marked difference between yields in different parts of the country. If so then what has happened to the shop investment market in the after-math of the sub-prime crisis, ensuing recession and downturn generally (2008 onwards) could be said to be a return to the 'norm'. In other words, values nowadays are not on the low side because they have fallen from the peak, but have merely reverted to the rightful level. When that approach is adopted, prospects become a lot clearer.
In the Red Book, the RICS manual for valuers, the open market value ("OMV") is the best price obtainable in a transaction completed on the valuation date based upon the following assumptions:
(i) a willing seller (a hypothetical owner who is neither eager nor reluctant i.e. not forced but not at a price which suits only him/her).
(ii) prior to the valuation, a reasonable period to market the property and complete all the necessary legal formalities was available.
(iii) during this period, the state of the market was the same as at the date of valuation.
(iv) any bid from a special purchaser is excluded.(vi) all parties acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion
In 1994, agreed with the British Bankers Association, the RICS Valuation Guidance Note introduced "Estimated Realisation Price", ("ERP") a basis of valuation to be used solely for loan valuation purposes. ERP is identical to OMV in representing an exchange price in the market place, but it differs on a number of points, two of which are fundamental. ‘Reasonably expected’ is retained in the ERP definition but the two fundamental points are:
(i) the marketing period commences on the date of valuation, with the sale completed after a reasonable marketing period to be specified by the valuer.
(ii) the market is dynamic and is not assumed to be static over the marketing period.
The opinion must be informed and given by a knowledgeable and experienced person. Valuation is not just a science, but also an art. To arrive at an opinion of value, a surveyor considers a host of factors, including intuition. In my opinion, surveyors that ignore intuition do so at their peril. The market is not always logical. Prediction may be frowned upon as esoteric, but knowing what is going to happen or at least attempting to forecast realistically is, in my opinion, just as important as basing opinion on the past or present. However, because many surveyors are focussed more on the past - for example, talking about when the market returns to 'normal' - or prejudiced by their own experience in acting for retailers whose business model depends on being able to rent shops for next to nothing - the future prospects are often ignored.
The market comprises buyers and sellers. Although surveyors do not make the market, it is the surveyor's interpretation of the behaviour and attitude of buyers and sellers that will have an often a profound influence upon the state and direction of the market. The reason surveyors have so much say is that, unlike the seller and/or buyer's opinion which is likely to be subjective and sentimental, the surveyor's opinion is objective. With 'subjective' the seller or buyer will assess the proposition in relation to the buyer's individual requirements, whereas with 'objective' the surveyor will assess the proposition in relation to the market.
In theory, objectivity is neutral; in practice it may be bias. Without training, and even then it can be difficult, it is virtually impossible for a human being to be emotionally detached. The partisan of professional standards may also overshadow. For example, chartered surveyors, as members of an institution with a code of conduct, are subject to fear of a disciplinary committee or at worst expelled. It does not help that, from my observations, the RICS is prone to issuing and revising practice statements and guidance notes for its members after the event, rather than in anticipation of market trends. One difficulty I suspect is conflict of interest between valuation surveyors and their colleagues in investment departments, and quite possibly of shareholders where surveyors operate as public or private limited companies. Ultimately, the law and the view of the courts in case-law is paramount. To quote from a textbook of Professional Negligence, the authors Jackson and Powell state "a professional is not entitled slavishly to follow the provisions of a code of practice". Per PK Finans International (UK) Ltd v Andrew Downs and Co Ltd [1992], the court's reservations about the status of the RICS guidance notes are made apparent: "I suspect that they are as much for the protection of surveyors as anything else, in that they set out various recommendations which, if followed, it is hoped will protect the surveyor from the unpleasantness of being sued". In my view, where a surveyor has informed knowledge of the market there is a duty of care to anyone whom the surveyor is advising. When a surveyor has a feeling that all is not as it should be, to keep quiet and toe the party-line is not an option.
So, since there is a difference between the value of a property and as an investment, how does one go about separating the two values? The question is by no means that easy to answer. To begin with, it is a question of how far back one should go. Arguably, one should go back approximately 30 years to the time before buyer inexperience took hold and when there was a marked difference between yields in different parts of the country. If so then what has happened to the shop investment market in the after-math of the sub-prime crisis, ensuing recession and downturn generally (2008 onwards) could be said to be a return to the 'norm'. In other words, values nowadays are not on the low side because they have fallen from the peak, but have merely reverted to the rightful level. When that approach is adopted, prospects become a lot clearer.
Five Key Dates
For purpose of agreeing or determining a rent, there are five key dates:
1) the review date;
2) the valuation date;
3) the earliest date for implementing the dispute resolution procedure
4) the date when the revised rent is payable; and
5) the date when any back rent is payable.
The review date is either specifically stated or calculated for the period from commencement of the term. A lease that does not define or specify the term commencement date creates problems, since it becomes a question of whether from the phrasing in the lease it is intended for the term to start from the commencement or the date of the lease. The date of the lease is the date of the document and even if that date were the same as the term commencement it is preferable for the lease to be clear.
I prefer the actual date(s) for the review(s) to be specified. That avoids convoluted terminology and interpretation of anniversary dates.
It is important to agree the valuation date, since that date does not have to be the same date as when the revised rent is payable.
Normally the revised rent payable would be back-dated to the review date, unless otherwise stated in the lease.
1) the review date;
2) the valuation date;
3) the earliest date for implementing the dispute resolution procedure
4) the date when the revised rent is payable; and
5) the date when any back rent is payable.
The review date is either specifically stated or calculated for the period from commencement of the term. A lease that does not define or specify the term commencement date creates problems, since it becomes a question of whether from the phrasing in the lease it is intended for the term to start from the commencement or the date of the lease. The date of the lease is the date of the document and even if that date were the same as the term commencement it is preferable for the lease to be clear.
I prefer the actual date(s) for the review(s) to be specified. That avoids convoluted terminology and interpretation of anniversary dates.
It is important to agree the valuation date, since that date does not have to be the same date as when the revised rent is payable.
Normally the revised rent payable would be back-dated to the review date, unless otherwise stated in the lease.
Review dates
For some reason, best known to the world of lawyer-draftsmen, the phrasing in leases is often unbelievably convoluted. Commonly, review dates are not specified, such as 25 December 2006, 25 December 2011, but referred to as intervals such as 5th and 10th anniversaries, which is all very well provided it is clear from the wording of the lease from which each particular anniversary is computed.
Confusion can arise when, in the drafting of a lease, the draftsman uses the word ‘lease’ when referring to commencement dates for purpose of term, rent, and rent reviews. In modern leases, each expression or phrase will usually be defined in the lease so as to leave no scope for different interpretation, but where the draftsman does not, or phrasing or expression definitions are incomplete, and instead refers casually to the date of the lease, an ambiguity can arise where the lease states that rent reviews are at stated intervals during the term but the review dates themselves are calculated from commencement of the lease.
Anniversary dates in leases are often unspecified, referring to a period of time, rather than actual dates, so can cause interpretation problems, and particularly with rent review and/or break clause the wording of the lease may be critical for ensuring the validity of any notices. Judging by the volume of case-law concerning incorrect dates on notices, it is high time the habit of obliging the parties to calculate or interpret the appropriate dates for themselves is scrapped and instead the actual dates specified wherever possible. Having said that, it can sometimes pay to leave the actual review date unspecified.
Confusion can arise when, in the drafting of a lease, the draftsman uses the word ‘lease’ when referring to commencement dates for purpose of term, rent, and rent reviews. In modern leases, each expression or phrase will usually be defined in the lease so as to leave no scope for different interpretation, but where the draftsman does not, or phrasing or expression definitions are incomplete, and instead refers casually to the date of the lease, an ambiguity can arise where the lease states that rent reviews are at stated intervals during the term but the review dates themselves are calculated from commencement of the lease.
Anniversary dates in leases are often unspecified, referring to a period of time, rather than actual dates, so can cause interpretation problems, and particularly with rent review and/or break clause the wording of the lease may be critical for ensuring the validity of any notices. Judging by the volume of case-law concerning incorrect dates on notices, it is high time the habit of obliging the parties to calculate or interpret the appropriate dates for themselves is scrapped and instead the actual dates specified wherever possible. Having said that, it can sometimes pay to leave the actual review date unspecified.