The Intermediary – October 2026 - Flipbook - Page 85
T E C H N O L O GY
Opinion
The evolution
of surveying
D
esktop valuations
(DVs) have now been
part of the mortgage
market for long
enough to move
beyond the status of
an emerging technology.
Westmarq first introduced them
in 2017, when the idea of assessing
a property without a physical
inspection was still relatively new.
Eight years on, desktop valuations are
an established part of the valuation
landscape and the technology, data
and processes supporting them have
developed considerably.
That gives the industry something it
did not have when desktop valuations
first appeared: experience.
We have now had years to see
where desktop valuations work well,
where they present challenges and
what makes the difference between a
remote assessment that is appropriate
and one that is not.
Perhaps the biggest lesson is that
the success of a desktop valuation does
not start with the technology. It starts
with the case.
There was a tendency in the
early discussions around DVs to
frame the question as whether a
property could be valued without
a physical inspection. In practice,
the more useful question is whether
the available evidence is sufficient
to support a confident valuation
without one.
That means considering the quality
and relevance of comparable evidence,
the characteristics of the property and
any indicators that might warrant
closer investigation.
The data available to valuers has
changed considerably since 2017.
There is now far greater access to
property information, transaction
data and digital tools that can help
build a more complete picture
of a property.
However, more data does not
automatically mean beer evidence.
The important question is whether the
information is relevant to the property
being assessed and gives sufficient
confidence in the conclusion.
This becomes particularly
important with unusual layouts,
extensive alterations, specialist
properties or limited comparable
evidence. A desktop valuation is not
automatically inappropriate in these
cases, but the instruction needs to
be assessed properly before deciding
which valuation route is suitable.
At Westmarq, our Property Decision
Engine assesses the characteristics and
risk associated with an instruction
and determines the most appropriate
route. Depending on the case, that can
mean an automated valuation model
(AVM), a desktop valuation, or a full
physical inspection.
The right balance
The objective is not to maximise
the number of desktop valuation
completed. It is to identify where a
desktop valuation provides the right
balance of evidence, professional
oversight, speed and cost for
the lender.
The second lesson is that
professional oversight remains
important.A desktop valuation is
not simply a maer of collecting
information and producing a number.
The surveyor needs to consider the
evidence, understand its limitations
and decide whether the conclusion is
properly supported.
A good DV process also needs robust
controls. At Westmarq, Nexus Review
scrutinises 100% of cases, with 5% sent
for audit, while Nexus Stop uses preset criteria to automatically halt a case
if it reaches defined risk thresholds.
The third lesson is that speed is
valuable, but only when it comes with
appropriate assurance.
Our average desktop valuation
turnaround is under one day, with
priority desktop valuations available
in as lile as 90 minutes. But a
RICHARD SEXTON
is managing director
at Westmarq
valuation completed quickly is not
necessarily efficient if it requires
further intervention later. Equally,
sending a surveyor to inspect a
property that could have been
assessed remotely may add time
and cost without improving the
lending decision.
The real benefit comes from
matching the valuation route to the
circumstances of the case.
That is perhaps the most important
lesson from the development of
desktop valuations. They have not
created a choice between digital and
physical surveying. They have helped
create a more flexible valuation model
in which different approaches can be
used for different types of risk.
For lenders, that should mean
greater choice and more proportionate
processes. For the surveying industry,
the conversation needs to move
beyond whether DVs are simply
“good” or “bad”. Aer eight years,
we have enough experience to ask a
more useful question: what makes
a DV good?
The answer is not simply beer
technology. It is the combination
of reliable data, appropriate case
selection, robust controls and
experienced professional oversight.
Eight years on, the most
significant achievement of desktop
valuations may therefore be that
they have changed the question the
industry is asking.
It is no longer about whether a
surveyor needs to visit every property.
It is about understanding what each
property and lending decision actually
requires, and having the technology,
data and professional expertise to
deliver it.
That is where the next stage of
valuation development lies. ●
October 2026 | The Intermediary
83
