000			01522cab a2200205 4500
001			ABS46839
008			090401t1992 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u59663
041			_aeng
245			_aHalifax Building Society and others v Edell and others
260			_c1992
350			_a0
490			_aWeekly Law Reports _v(1992) 3 WLR 136-152(17)
520			_aChD 28 February 1992. Some of the defendants, existing borrowers of the building society (H), applied for further advances secured against property. They were required to choose one of three mortgage valuations, a basic valuation to enable the society to assess the adequacy of the security afforded, a house buyers valuation which contained a fuller report or a full structural survey. The defendants chose either the basic survey or the house buyers report. They complained to the Building Societies Ombudsman that the valuations had been prepared negligently by professional valuers employed by H. The Ombudsman did not have the power to determine the case so it passed to the high court. The declarations were refused on the grounds that a basic valuation prepared by a building society employee was an action taken by the society and if it proved to be wrong amounted to a maladministration, but a house buyers report constituted a contract between the society and the borrower and a negligent
650			_aMORTGAGE VALUATIONS
650			_aREMORTGAGING
690			_aRATING AND VALUATION-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c36639 _d36639