So everyone needs to get hold of those 'independent valuations' and separate out (a) what they've been told by the lender, and (b) what they see on paper in front of them.(posted 8531 days ago)Discrepancies are actually good news, in a bizarre way, because it means your lender is either trying to hide something or is being inefficient, stuff which it doesn't want airing in court.
When you look at those bits of paper, ask, are they really 'independent' and are they really 'valuations'? Are any of the parties involved affiliated to the lender? Are the two valuations suspiciously identical? Have you been shown top copies or bad photocopies? (put it this way, you can't tell if there's been tippexing or alterations done, with bad photocopies or fiche copies.) Have the valuations been signed and dated in the same handwriting as the rest of the form? Who issued the form? Is it subject to Data Protection Act provisions? Etc etc.
Don't forget, these lenders have a legal duty to obtain the best price. Skipton v Stott confirmed that in the Court of Appeal, and the whole of the lender's claim against the repossessee was disallowed.