Go to content Go to menu

Iain Herriot's Valuations were finally shown for what they are by a local paper in Warwick, see my photo album for the article, but the real evidence was from the Federal Court hearing, this was never published.












Iain Herriot's valuation was accepted by the Queensland Government Real Estate Tribunal, part of the Queensland OFT debacle. Chris company sold a property for $164,900. The ACCC Valuer valued the property at $135,000 and Mr Herriot Valued the property at $90,000 - So who was correct the Esteemed Mr Herriot, the ACCC Valuer or Chris? 

The Federal Court Judge and the 5 subsequent Appeals Court Judges found that the $164,900 sale price as a fair market value. In other words Chris proved the Valuer used by the media to be either incompetent, inaccurate or Fraudulent. Yet the media never apologised or paid any compensation to Chris or the people who sold their homes and lost money because of the media and Herriot's Valuation.  

The ACCC refused to mention Mr Herriot's Valuation of $90,000 and did not call him as an expert witness in the court case, ask yourself why this would be? They told Chris, Herriot would not be a creditable witness that could be used in the Federal Court.

The reason the valuation the ACCC presented in Court was not accepted by the Court, was because the ACCC wanted a low Valuation and they had to re-instruct the Valuer 3 times to get a low enough Valuation and disregarded more than 250 Comparable Sales. Obviously when a valuation has to be re-instructed 3 times it cannot be accurate. 

So how is it that Herriot can continue to come up with these Low Valuations and people still believe him to be a creditable Valuer when even the ACCC disregarded his $90,000 Valuation as ridiculously low, and the Judge found that the property was worth $164,900 and the $135,000 Valuation was not accurate. 

You have to wonder how Mr Herriot would feel if someone in the Media published an article "Iain Herriot child Molestor" and used the same sort of research and fabrication to destroy his reputation as he has used to destroy Chris' reputation, would he be very happy?

Herriots had a habit of devaluing a property and contradicting his own valuations, just because Marketeers may have been involved, or was it they made a mistake on one or the other, you decide?

Rivergum Drive Nerang

  • Herriotts              13/8/1999                $159,000
  • Herriotts              15/12/1999               $120,000

Now this is a drop of $39,000, did the market drop by 20+% in 4 months? Which one should we believe? Which one is correct? If you bought in August 1999 did you pay too much? If You bought in December did you get a bargain, please Mr Herriot tell us which one is correct?

Ridgeway Avenus Southport

  • Herriotts               8/3/1999                         $208,000
  • Herriotts              31/7/1999                        $190,000

Again which one is correct, or did the market drop 10% in 4 months? So Mr Herriott which valuation is correct, did the people who bought with your original valuations pay $18,000 too much?

If so, will you refund the $18,000 and $39,000 to them? Or did you simply revalue the property down to get your name in the media trying to make marketers look bad? Please Mr Herriot tell us which valuation is correct or would you tell us they both are because you are never wrong and the market moved quickly?

In 2005 Chris tried to help a developer to sell properties in Warwick in 2005. But the media found out and enlisted Mr Herriot to do a valuation for them. Mr Herriot was asked to prove the properties were overpriced and surprise, surprise, he came back with a valuation lower then the selling price. 

The Warwick people were up in arms about this so the local paper done a story on August 3rd 2005, for some reason it is not on their website any longer but we have attached a copy of the article in the photo album and also above. 

After talking to local valuers, real estate agents and developers it was found that the properties were in fact good value. In fact they seem to think that there was a shortage of land and that it would be a lot more than Herriot's valuation. Herriot's estimate of the land was as low as $45,000 and the Locals seem to think it was $60,000, interesting that Mr Herriot can value so differently to get his name in the paper, interesting.

That is a 30% difference and Herriot had no good reason other than spite or a chance at media stardom, Herriot obviously did no research and used inferior quality comparisons and did not look at anything comparable. 

The interesting comment was that Mr Herriott refused to say how much he had been paid by the Courier Mail for his Valuation. I thought you were the one that wanted full disclosure Mr Herriot?