I believe that if there is a difference greater than 10% between valuation and sale figures id does not automatically deem that there negligence has occurred but that it does give reason to the court to investigate whether negligence has in fact taken place. I understand that this was reiterated as recently as last year in the Court of Appeal in the Skipton Building Society -v- Stott case.(posted 8472 days ago)Incidentally other statements arising from that landmark case and published in the Guardian of the 24th June 2000 were:
"Once there is evidence that a property had been sold at an undervalue, the courts should no longer assume that the fact of the forced sale reduced the price."
AND
"If estate agents were used to sell the property, they would need to show they marketed it in the same way that they did other properties."
AND
"Indeed, the fact that there is no owner-occupier means that there is no chain and that the seller can be flexible about completion dates. This, in turn, might actually slightly increase the price that should be obtained."
Makes one think that lenders just aren't aware of the law, doesn't it?