Platform Funding Ltd v Bank of Scotland plc [2008] EWCA Civ 930 concerned a valuer who inspected and valued the wrong property. The instruction identified a particular plot, but the surveyor was shown, and valued, a different and more complete house on the development. The lender advanced money against a property that did not match the security it thought it held.
The Court of Appeal held the valuer liable. The obligation to value the property identified in the instruction was, in effect, an unqualified one: the surveyor had promised to value a specific house and had valued another. This was not a question of whether reasonable skill and care had been exercised in forming an opinion of value; it was a failure to perform the core task at all. Being deceived by the borrower did not excuse the error.
The case separates two kinds of valuer obligation. Forming an opinion of value is a matter of reasonable skill and care, judged against a permissible margin. Identifying and inspecting the correct property is closer to a strict duty: either the right house was valued or it was not. A firm cannot rely on the margin of error to cover a failure of identification.
Platform Funding shows that not every valuer obligation is qualified by reasonable care. Apex explains how these exposures inform cover on its surveyors' PI guide, and the related issues for firms managing property on the property managers' PI guide. A careful placement recognises that some claims turn on performance of the task itself, not the quality of the opinion.
Because the duty to value the correct property is close to strict, the controls that prevent identification errors are worth more than they might appear. Cross-checking the address, title number and plan against the instruction, confirming boundaries on site, and querying anything that does not match the paperwork are simple steps that address the exact failure in Platform Funding. Borrower fraud and misdescription are foreseeable, and a court will not treat being misled as an excuse for valuing the wrong asset.
For the firm and its insurer, the significance is that this category of claim cannot be defended by reference to the permissible margin of error. The margin protects an honest difference of opinion about value; it does nothing for a valuation of the wrong house. Firms should therefore treat property identification as a distinct point of process discipline, separate from the exercise of valuation judgement, and keep a record that the correct property was identified and inspected.
Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Firm reference number 724952. This entry is general information, not advice on any particular policy.