The £9.2m instruction

The core issue is objectivity and integrity under Rule 1: I must not select evidence to produce a pre-determined number. The lender will rely on the report for a £6.8m loan, so a misleading £9.2m value could cause loss and damage public confidence (Rule 5). There is also a conflict: the borrower is the firm's largest management client and the firm depends on lender panel work. That commercial relationship must be disclosed and managed under the RICS Conflicts of Interest professional statement; it cannot be allowed to override the valuation. The outlier at £9.0m is not comparable on condition, lease length or covenant, so giving it decisive weight would be methodologically wrong. Omitting the distressed sales at £8.1m and £8.3m would misrepresent the market. The instruction is not 'judgement'; it is pressure to produce a false opinion. My duty is to the lender as client, but also to the profession and public interest. I would record the pressure and value on the evidence, explaining any uncertainty and sensitivity around £8.4m.

I would tell the MD in writing that I cannot omit the comparables or adopt an unsupported value, and explain the comparable adjustments. I would complete the valuation at £8.4m unless further evidence supports a different figure, include all three distressed sales and the outlier with reasons for weighting, and add a clear statement of assumptions and uncertainty. I would check the firm's conflicts procedure and make the required disclosure of the borrower relationship and the pressure to the lender's contact, or recuse myself if the conflict cannot be managed. I would not sign a report that I believe is misleading, even if the fee is at risk. If the MD removes me or sends a different report, I would preserve my draft, notes and emails and escalate internally to the COLP or board. I would not delay to the deadline at the expense of accuracy. If no internal resolution is possible, I would take advice on a RICS report.

A report is not automatic at the first sign of pressure, but the threshold is crossed if the firm actually sends a misleading valuation, retaliates against me for refusing, or asks me to conceal evidence. RICS expects members to act in the public interest and cooperate with RICS; a lender being given a false valuation is a serious regulatory concern. I would first use internal escalation and the firm's whistleblowing route, keeping a factual record. If that fails, I would contact RICS Professional Standards for advice and consider a formal report, providing the draft, the comparables and the MD's instruction. I would not report a mere suspicion as fact. I would also consider whether the lender needs to be told that its instruction has not been followed. Before any external report, I would check confidentiality and legal advice, but I would not let a confidentiality clause silence a genuine public-interest concern.