Copy article

What property valuation issue changed or delayed your finance application?

ended 14. August 2026

Bridging Loan Directory is examining how property valuations can change, delay or prevent finance transactions.

We would like to hear from brokers, lenders, valuers, landlords, developers and borrowers with recent first-hand experience.

Please explain:

  • what the original funding proposal assumed;
  • what issue emerged during valuation;
  • whether it involved the assessed value, comparables, condition, planning status, use, construction, tenancy, access or valuation method;
  • how the valuation affected the amount or type of finance available; and
  • whether the transaction proceeded and what resolved the problem.

We are interested in both physical valuations and cases involving automated or desktop valuation methods.

Recent anonymised examples are welcome. Please include your role, the property type and enough detail to explain the practical effect. Concise responses of approximately 100–200 words would be ideal.

After Bridging Loan Directory publishes the story, Newspage will adapt it for a wider consumer audience and distribute it to national and consumer media. 

6 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Star Quote
Copy

Editor
Tony Sanchez
Founder at Bridging Loan Directory
A valuation is sometimes treated as an administrative step that confirms an agreed purchase price, but our reporting shows it can materially change the finance available.

Problems often emerge where the property’s condition, planning status, current use or likely demand differs from the assumptions on which the original application was based. Unusual properties and those with limited comparable evidence can create further uncertainty.

Automated and desktop valuations may shorten the process for suitable properties, but they cannot replace a physical inspection in every case. The important decision is not simply which method is fastest, but whether it gives the lender enough reliable information about that particular security.

Borrowers can reduce avoidable surprises by considering valuation suitability before committing significant costs and by giving the broker and lender complete information about the property from the outset.

Tony Sanchez, founder of Bridging Loan Directory
Copy

Editor
Tracey Dixon
Buy-to-Let Mortgage Specialist & Owner at Pure Mortgage and Protection
A down-valuation can turn a perfectly affordable mortgage into a completely different case overnight. I’ve seen applications where the borrowing worked comfortably based on the agreed purchase price, only for the lender’s valuation to come back lower. That can push the mortgage into a higher loan-to-value bracket, meaning the original product or even the amount the client needs is no longer available.
The frustrating part is that nothing has changed about the borrower – their income, deposit and affordability are exactly the same. It is the lender’s view of the property that has changed the deal. As a broker, that can mean restructuring the mortgage, finding another lender, asking the client to increase their deposit or, in some cases, renegotiating the purchase price. A mortgage can work perfectly on paper, but the valuation is the moment the property has to work for the lender, too.
Copy

Editor
Nouran Moustafa
Practice Principal & IFA at Roxton Wealth
A recent case involved a landlord refinancing a specialist property where the funding worked perfectly on paper, but the valuation became the sticking point. The initial lender relied heavily on a desktop valuation and limited comparable evidence, which produced a figure materially below what the client and local market evidence supported. That lower value immediately reduced the available loan and would have left the client with a funding gap. Rather than forcing the case through, we moved to a lender willing to take a more hands-on approach and instruct a physical valuation. Once the valuer could properly assess the property, its condition, layout and local comparables, the figure was much more realistic and the transaction proceeded. It is a good example of why valuation method matters. Sometimes the property is not the problem; the problem is trying to value a specialist asset with a tool designed for something much more standard.
Copy

Editor
Hannah Vandervennin
Director - Mortgage Adviser at The Mortgage Consultancy
We recently helped an investor who came to us in crisis after 2 refinance attempts failed following lower valuations on an HMO refurbishment. We hadn’t arranged the original bridge and, in our view, the deal had been funded aggressively against a projected uplift, leaving little room for error.

We pieced together an exit by finding a lender who fitted the case and could instruct the original valuer, who ultimately stood by their previous investment valuation despite a changed market.

We do see investors become overly optimistic around projected GDVs and build an exit around achieving a very specific valuation. At that point, an element of luck has crept into the plan.

Using an uplift in GDV can make a huge difference to a project, and I’m all for being brave where the numbers support it. But we’ve seen bravery without enough contingency behind it, and it gets messy very quickly. If you’re borrowing heavily against a future uplift, I’d want a Plan A, a Plan B and sometimes a Plan C.
Copy

Editor
Harps Garcha
Director at Brooklyns Financial
Desktop and "drive-by" valuations are cheaper and quicker, but from both a buyer's and a lender's point of view they carry real risk. When they go wrong, they cost far more in time and money than the saving was ever worth. A recent case makes the point. The property was a semi-detached house being bought as an investment. Visually it looked brand new, having been through a full refurbishment, ready to rent from day one. One detail stood out at the offer stage. The agent made it a condition of acceptance that there would be no negotiations after valuation. The natural reading was that the property was overpriced and a down valuation was coming.
What came back was worse. The lender's valuer returned a nil valuation, subject to further investigation and a damp report. The property turned out to suffer from severe damp that had been covered up during the refurbishment: a defect that would have run to thousands to put right, on top of the lost rent while the work was done.
Copy

Editor
Adam Stiles
Managing Director at Helix Financial Partners
Semi-commercial with HMO above was found to not have the correct planning in place after a valuation. Despite numerous legal challenges the borrower has had to go back to the planners to get a Certificate of Lawfulness. We've placed this back in with the lender again to now get this through - with a different lawyer on the lender's side as the original one did everything he could to make everyone's life as difficult, painful and expensive as possible. Luckily us brokers talk about experiences with lenders and professionals alike!