Walking away from a valuation instruction is one of the hardest decisions a valuer can make. The instinct to help a client, maintain a relationship or secure a fee is strong.
However, some instructions carry risks that cannot be managed, mitigated or justified within the framework of RICS' Rules of Conduct and professional standards. Accepting them exposes the valuer, the client and the profession to avoidable harm.
Knowing when to decline is a clear marker of competence, objectivity and ethical judgement. It protects the valuer, the client, intended users and the reputation of the profession.
This article outlines the types of assignments that valuers should decline, the red flags that signal unacceptable risk and why no is often the most professional answer.
Some instructions are too risky to accept
Many compliance failures begin long before a valuation report is drafted. They arise the moment a valuer agrees to take on a poorly framed, unsupported or conflicted instruction.
That is why VPS 1 of RICS Valuation – Global Standards (Red Book Global Standards) is mandatory: valuers must confirm that the scope of work is appropriate and that the client's requirements can be met to the expected standard.
When those elements cannot be satisfied, the professional response is to walk away and professionally decline the instruction. Common issues surrounding high-risk instructions include:
- inadequate local knowledge
- inability to collect essential information
- pressure to depart from mandatory standards
- real or perceived conflicts of interest
- inadequate expertise in the asset type
- liability arising from unreasonable time pressure.
No report, however polished, can compensate for an instruction that is flawed from the outset.
Inadequate local knowledge
Valuers must understand the market in which the asset sits, otherwise the risk of misinterpreting evidence or overlooking material factors rises sharply, especially in opaque, data‑poor or relationship‑driven markets.
Online research is used extensively by valuers all over the world, but it cannot replace local expertise or reveal hyper‑local issues tied to construction methods, planning histories or neighbourhood‑specific risks.
Some matters that affect a property's mortgageability and, in some cases, its marketability and value, such as mundic block construction in parts of the southwest of England, methamphetamine contamination in Australia or pyrite heave in Quebec, may be invisible to anyone unfamiliar with local conditions.
Local knowledge also means knowing what information is relevant and available. In some countries, information such as zoning, environmental constraints or title encumbrances is available only through paid searches or slow administrative processes.
As a result, it may not be expected that valuers in those markets check these items routinely. In other jurisdictions, the same information may be available quickly and free of charge, creating an expectation that valuers always check it.
A valuer working outside their home market may assume their usual practices apply everywhere, which, to local professionals, can appear careless or incompetent, not due to lack of skill but due to lack of local procedural knowledge.
Where sufficient local knowledge is lacking, the safest course is to decline the instruction or work alongside someone with the requisite local expertise.
Insufficient or unverifiable information
A valuation is only as reliable as the information underpinning it. When key documents are missing, withheld or contradictory, the valuer may be placed in a position of unacceptable uncertainty.
For example, a valuer instructed for refinancing may be provided with a tenancy schedule that cannot be reconciled to lease documents or is missing entirely.
This undermines the valuation's credibility and increases exposure if it is scrutinised later.
The correct approach is to request the missing information and explain its relevance. If it cannot be provided and if, as a result, the valuer cannot form a reliable opinion to support the valuation purpose, the instruction should be declined.
Proceeding in such circumstances risks relying on inaccurate income assumptions and producing a misleading valuation, which could force reliance on assumptions, incomplete evidence or unsupported judgement.
'A valuation is only as reliable as the information underpinning it'
Unreasonable pressure on deadlines
Time pressure is a normal part of valuation work, but unreasonable deadlines are a major risk factor.
Requests such as 'can you do a desktop valuation by tomorrow?', 'we don't need an inspection' or 'send the draft now; supporting documents will follow' are common, but they push valuers into producing work without adequate investigation, analysis or documentation.
This is not to say that all expedited instructions are inappropriate. Where the scope is clearly defined, sufficient information is available and the valuer is confident that the work can be undertaken without compromising professional standards, a shorter timescale may be acceptable.
The key distinction is whether the timeframe allows for proper investigation, analysis and professional judgement.
Rushed work leads to incomplete files, weak reasoning and poor evidence quality, all of which put both the valuer and client at risk.
If the timescale does not allow for proper due diligence, exercise of professional scepticism and an adequate period of reflection, the instruction should be declined.
Attempts to influence value
Almost every valuer has encountered clients hinting at the desired outcome. These hints may relate to lending thresholds, refinancing needs or comparisons with previous valuations.
Even when framed informally, such as asking whether the current valuation is 'likely to be in line', these cues represent an attempt to influence the valuer's judgement.
Any pressure that attempts to steer the outcome compromises independence. Accepting such influence can breach ethical expectations and may expose the valuer to claims of bias or negligence.
If a client cannot accept an impartial, evidence‑based valuation, the instruction should be refused.
'If a client cannot accept an impartial, evidence‑based valuation, the instruction should be refused'
Conflicts of interest
Potential conflicts of interest can arise in many ways, from long‑standing client relationships, referral arrangements or personal or professional links to the property or parties involved. Crucially, a conflict is not a feeling but a visible condition.
Some valuers believe that they can remain impartial, no matter their connection to or involvement with the property and parties involved, but professional standards, including the RICS Rules of Conduct and the global professional statement on conflicts of interest, assess conflicts objectively.
If the relationship or prior involvement could cause others to doubt the neutrality of the valuation, then a conflict exists, regardless of the valuer's confidence in their own integrity.
Users of valuations must be able to trust the appearance of independence. If a conflict cannot be clearly managed or mitigated, the valuer should decline the instruction.
Work outside the valuer's competence
A major and preventable source of non‑compliance is taking on work outside one's area of expertise. Specialist assets and valuation purposes require specialist skills.
Experience with general property, even across many years, does not equip a valuer to assess specialist operational businesses or complex asset classes.
Competence means having the specific knowledge required to gather and interpret evidence and form a defensible view. If the valuer does not have it, the instruction should be declined or undertaken with a suitably experienced specialist.
'Competence means having the specific knowledge required to gather and interpret evidence and form a defensible view'
Ambiguous, inappropriate or misaligned bases of value
Sometimes an instruction itself is flawed. Clients may request a basis of value that does not align with the purpose, statutory context or market reality. They may mix bases or insist on assumptions that distort the valuation.
If the basis of value or required assumptions are incompatible with professional standards and the client will not revise them, the valuer should decline.
How to decline an instruction professionally
Saying no does not have to damage a professional relationship. A professional refusal should:
- thank the client for the opportunity
- explain the precise reason the instruction cannot be accepted
- link it to professional standards (competence, independence and information sufficiency)
- offer alternatives, such as more time, more data or referral to another valuer
- emphasise the importance of producing a valuation that is reliable and defensible.
Most clients respect a valuer who demonstrates integrity, transparency and professional judgement.
'Most clients respect a valuer who demonstrates integrity, transparency and professional judgement'
Saying no is part of being a professional
Knowing when to decline an assignment is a protective act that supports the public interest, safeguards clients from poor advice and preserves the credibility of the profession.
The most resilient, respected valuers are those who understand that professionalism is shown not only in the work they undertake, but also in the work they refuse.
Making the decision to decline an unsuitable instruction is not simply a matter of personal risk management; it is fundamental to maintaining public trust and confidence in the valuation profession as a whole.
Related competencies include: Client care, Conduct rules, ethics and professional practice, Conflict avoidance, management and dispute resolution procedures, Legal/regulatory compliance, Valuation
Discover the new RICS Member App: CPD on the go
RICS has introduced a refreshed CPD approach that prioritises meaningful, high-quality learning that genuinely benefits your work and is tailored to your specialism, career stage, and the real-world challenges you face.
The new app makes logging CPD simpler and more intuitive, so you can focus on the development that matters to your practice.
