Disputing a valuation: the evidence valuers will actually consider
Start with the uncomfortable part: a formal valuation query rarely moves the figure. A $2.4m contract that came back at $2.05m was queried with additional comparable sales; the valuer distinguished each one individually — superior water frontage, more recent settlement, off-market, dated — and the figure held. A subsequent short-form valuation on the same property came back essentially unchanged.
If there is a large gap between contract price and valuation, a dispute is unlikely to close it. Where a query does work, it works because the evidence is of a kind the valuer is professionally permitted to rely on. Most of what borrowers send is not.
Evidence a valuer can use
Settled, transacted, local, like-for-like sales
Recent. Close in proximity. Genuinely comparable in size, specification and amenity. All four conditions, not three. Valuers discount comparables sourced outside the immediate area even where the price gap looks small — so a broader list from a developer’s own research typically does nothing.
A local agent’s appraisal, supplied before inspection
Supplying comparable sales and a local agent’s appraisal ahead of the inspection, and offering to make the agent available by phone, is a legitimate and practical way to inform the outcome. It is far more effective than the same material sent after the report lands.
An independent second market rental assessment (commercial)
This is the highest-leverage evidence on any income-producing asset. On one file, an assessed net market rental of roughly $670,000 p.a. was challenged with an independent assessment of $900,000–$950,000; at a ~4.5% cap rate that ~$230,000 gap implied a $4.5–5m valuation swing on a $12.5m facility. The argument was strengthened by showing the valuer had treated the lease as gross where the relevant legislation did not apply and land tax was in fact recoverable.
Comparable-sale arguments move commercial valuations slowly. Rental-assumption arguments move them fast.
A capex, rent and yield build-up
Where you need to justify a large and rapid uplift to a lender’s credit team, do not present the end figure. Present the mechanism: the capex spent, the rent it produced, and the precinct’s market yield applied to it. A property bought for $3.135m with $2.5m+ of capex, valued at $6.1m, was supported by showing rent moving from $145,000 to $417,000 p.a. gross and applying a ~4.25–4.5% market yield.
Evidence a valuer cannot use
- Sales within the same development. Only settled re-sales from outside the development count. A query relying on other units sold in the same project will be rejected on that basis alone.
- An unaccepted offer. Only completed transactions are market evidence. An offer of $X that nobody accepted proves nothing.
- Comparables outside the immediate area. Discounted, even where the price looks close.
- A qualitative description from an interested party. Where a JV partner or co-investor supplies a comparable that happens to lower your valuation, verify the underlying facts yourself. On one project a partner described a neighbouring comparable as “a bit bigger”; it was roughly 30% larger in floor area with materially superior amenity — three bathrooms and two car spaces against 2.5 and one, plus a cinema, gym and wine cellar. Independent verification supported a value roughly $400,000 higher than the partner’s framing implied.
Two procedural rules
- A completed panel valuation cannot be amended by emailing the valuer. A formal query must be lodged through the ordering portal. Expect extra scrutiny, and possibly an extra fee, where the builder is related to the borrower or where a later report such as a QS assessment needs incorporating.
- Overriding a panel-set report type needs a stated reason plus evidence — typically three specific, recent, close-proximity comparables with address, price and date. “We would prefer a fuller report” on its own does not carry.
Before you assume the valuer got it wrong
Check for a macro trigger. A valuer once queried an $85,000 gap between two near-identical duplex contract prices signed six weeks apart. The explanation was not build quality: one contracted before a federal budget announcement and a lending-policy change, the other after. Look for the policy or rate event around the contract date before you build an argument about the property.
And calibrate expectations generally. Bank and mortgage valuations typically land roughly 10% below what a property would realistically achieve on the open market — in strengthening and softening markets alike. That is a standing feature of the instrument, not an error to be argued away.
When the figure holds: the options ladder
- Accept the lower-LVR loan as approved and proceed on the smaller facility.
- Re-order with a different valuer, a different report type, or through a different lender’s valuation product. A desktop product on one refinance came back roughly $80,000 higher than the prior figure and unlocked usable equity.
- Move to a higher-LVR lender and weigh the extra risk fee explicitly against the extra funds released. That is an arithmetic comparison, not a preference.
- Settle at the lower approved amount and plan a post-settlement revaluation and top-up once equity stabilises. Documents issued at $2,016,000 against an expected $2,080,000 is a $64,000 problem to solve after settlement, not a reason to lose the transaction.
Supplying comparables and a target figure does not guarantee an outcome. On one file, six comparable sales averaging $782/sqm and an explicit ask to reach roughly $610,000 still produced a $600,000 valuation on an 858sqm site — below both the ask and a prior figure. Build a buffer into the structure rather than assuming the higher number.
General information only. It is not credit assistance, financial product advice, or an offer of finance, and it does not take account of your objectives, financial situation or needs. Examples are de-identified observations over 2024–2026.