One property, two parties: agreeing a valuation instruction

Agree the task before discussing the figure

Two people can agree that they need a valuation while imagining quite different assignments. One may expect the likely selling price today. The other may have a historic date in mind, or want an opinion on a proposed extension. Unless that difference is resolved, the report may answer the wrong question perfectly well.

A joint instruction should begin with a written brief agreed through the parties’ advisers. It should identify the client arrangement, the intended use, the property interest, and the date of value. The valuer must also consider whether the appointment is appropriate and independent.

Joint does not mean taking the middle figure

A jointly instructed valuer does not split the difference between two expectations. The task is to assess the evidence and explain the conclusion. An average of two unsupported figures has no special authority simply because it appears even-handed.

The Superior Courts rules provide for a court-directed single joint expert in appropriate circumstances (Courts Service, n.d.-a, Order 39, r.58). A privately agreed joint instruction and a court appointment should not be treated as interchangeable. The solicitor needs to establish the procedure that applies.

Use one clear information channel

Agree who supplies documents and who receives correspondence. If one party supplies a plan, an earlier valuation, or information about a defect, the handling of that material should follow the agreed arrangements. Avoid a process in which the valuer receives competing private instructions.

Access also deserves thought. Who can authorise entry? Who will attend? Are there occupied areas or outbuildings which cannot be inspected? A simple access plan can prevent an unnecessary disagreement on the day. Any limitation should be recorded rather than quietly overlooked.

Decide how queries and changes will be handled

The appointment should explain how factual corrections and requests for clarification are raised. A mistaken floor area is different from dissatisfaction with the value. A question about an omitted sale is different from pressure to change the conclusion.

Agree the fee arrangements and the position if additional work becomes necessary. These may include a second inspection, a supplementary report, or attendance at a hearing. Do not assume that the original fee covers every later development.

I favour a process people can understand before they enter it. That does not remove disagreement, but it gives disagreement a sensible route. The value of a joint instruction lies in a shared evidential starting point and a transparent method, rather than a promise that everybody will like the answer.