An estate agent valued a property for probate. The value was accepted by the Probate Office and by Revenue. The property was sold immediately after grant of probate with no improvement or change of circumstances. The price achieved was 50% above the valuation. This turned out to be because the estate agent used agricultural value only. But the property was an essential requirement of the County Council for its Development Plan dating back six years before the date of death. The County Council was the buyer. The estate agent did not consider the relevance of the property to the Development Plan in the valuation.
Revenue decided CGT was due on the 50% by which the sale price exceeded the valuation.
A complaint about the estate agent to the IPAV was rejected as it was not a regulatory body, only a membership body. A complaint to the PSRA was rejected as valuation was not a matter regulated under the PSRA legislation.
How can the estate agent be called to account for making a valuation for probate which did not take into account an overwhelmingly significant influence on the true value of the property?
Revenue decided CGT was due on the 50% by which the sale price exceeded the valuation.
A complaint about the estate agent to the IPAV was rejected as it was not a regulatory body, only a membership body. A complaint to the PSRA was rejected as valuation was not a matter regulated under the PSRA legislation.
How can the estate agent be called to account for making a valuation for probate which did not take into account an overwhelmingly significant influence on the true value of the property?