Down valuations describe an experience, not a method – Star Letter 14/08/2026

Have a story or opinion to share with Mortgage Solutions? Interact with us on X, LinkedIn or email us at editorial@ae3media.co.uk. 

This week, Countrywide Surveying Services’ Matt Ison disputed the use of the term down valuations in his opinion piece: Is there really such a thing as a ‘down valuation’? 

In response, Lendmind said: “The term survives because it describes an experience, not a method. A buyer who agreed a price and now has a funding gap is not misreading the valuation process, they are naming the day it broke. Better wording will not close the gap that created it.” 

Will Hale, CEO of Air, also weighed in, agreeing that the term ‘down valuation’ was “perhaps unhelpful and misrepresents what is happening in the process”. 

Hale added: “Also, it is good to have an expert land the fact base around current market experience around differences in actual valuations when compared to homeowner/adviser estimates. In Matt’s words: ‘What we are not seeing is evidence of a sudden or widespread increase in valuations falling below either agreed purchase prices or homeowner estimates. Our valuation data shows those proportions have remained broadly consistent, with no indication of a systemic shift.’ 

Sponsored

The next step towards a better home buying journey

Sponsored by Halifax Intermediaries

“However, this does contradict the anecdotal feedback I hear from advisers, which maybe suggests that the broader challenges in getting cases through to completion in the later life lending market are perhaps amplifying the frustrations that advisers are feeling towards surveyors – not always fairly.” 

Hale continued: “One thing that does baffle me somewhat is the variation in valuations that we see when two different surveyors are used. This seems to be happening more in the later life lending market as cases are increasingly complex and often the first lender [that] received the application may reject the case – meaning two valuations are sought, and therefore variations become more obvious to the customer and adviser, which can lead to scepticism. I understand that there is a subjective part to any valuation, but some of the differences shared with me are material. 

“The costs involved in obtaining more than one valuation are also significant. I appreciate the insurance challenge and the different lender criteria surveyors are working to when acting for one party rather than another, but are there not creative ways that lenders could share surveys in order to remove cost/friction from the process – costs [that] are ultimately borne by the customer?

“Would welcome views from advisers and surveyors active in the later life lending market and any ideas around how Air could help more in this area.” 

Lender criteria are not always clear to brokers

Also this week, Smart Money People’s Jake Sandford wrote about the different frustrations that brokers and lenders have with the mortgage application process, including how they are packaged, in his opinion piece: The mortgage experience gap. 

Lendmind gave its opinion, saying it was difficult to expect brokers to know what every lender wanted for each case. 

Lendmind said: “Packaging discipline assumes a broker can find out what good looks like at a given lender, and on specialist cases that standard often is not written down anywhere they can reach. It sits in a criteria PDF, a portal field and a business development manager’s (BDM’s) head, and the three do not always agree. 

“Smart Money People’s Mortgage Lender Benchmark has 83.7% of brokers calling BDM support vital while only 43.3% are happy with what they get, which is roughly the width of the gap where the rework is made. 

“Publish the standard per lender and the discipline follows. Ask for the discipline first and you get another round of resubmissions.”