Case study — Counter-appraisal after a mortgage refusal on an apartment in Casablanca

1. The context: a refusal caused neither by the profile nor by the debt ratio

Our client — let us call him Mr K., a senior executive in the financial sector in Casablanca, which is not without irony — had signed a preliminary agreement for an apartment in the Bourgogne district: a well-maintained 1990s building, a high floor, dual orientation, within walking distance of shops and the main routes to the city centre. The price had been negotiated after several visits to comparable properties: Mr K. knew his market and had not bought on impulse.

The credit file was clean: stable income, deposit in place, debt under control. Then the appraisal commissioned by the bank came in, with a value significantly below the agreed price. Mechanically, the loan-to-value ratio calculated on the appraised value (and not on the purchase price) fell below the bank's internal threshold. The result: a refusal, with the only apparent ways out being an additional down payment that Mr K. did not wish to mobilise, or abandoning the project before the condition precedent expired.

It is a scenario we cover in detail in our guide on the bank counter-appraisal in Casablanca: the refusal does not say “you paid too much”, it says “our appraisal and your price diverge”. The whole question is which of the two reflects the market.

2. Why the bank's appraisal can come out below the market

Before accepting the assignment, we said it clearly to Mr K.: a counter-appraisal is not a machine for producing the figure that suits the client. If the agreed price had really been above the market, our report would have said so — it has happened in other files, and that is precisely what gives the document its value. But there are structural reasons why a bank appraisal can come out below open market value, without anyone being at fault:

• The collateral logic. The bank's appraiser first values a security: the value at which the property could be resold in the event of default, sometimes under constrained sale conditions. This mortgage-lending value builds in prudence margins by construction.
• Comparables that are sometimes dated or too broad. A reference set mixing old transactions, properties in buildings of different standing or heterogeneous locations pulls the value towards an average that no longer describes the property's micro-market.
• Constrained visits. Bank assignments are often carried out in volume, with limited visit time. The floor, the orientation, the quality of the renovation, the condition of the common areas — all elements that justify precise adjustments — may be handled on a flat-rate basis.
• The absence of adversarial review. The borrower generally does not see the full report and can neither verify the comparables retained nor discuss the adjustments. The gap remains a black box.

Understanding these mechanisms changes the posture: it is not about accusing the bank's appraiser of incompetence, but about recognising that two different assignments produce two different values — and that the credit committee deserves to see both. We often refer our readers to this guide: what to do when the bank refuses your purchase price.

3. The counter-appraisal: our methodology step by step

The assignment was carried out following the framework our RICS-certified experts apply to all reports, in accordance with the RICS Red Book standards:

• Full visit and cross-checked survey. Surface areas verified room by room and reconciled with the land title, actual condition of the fittings (renovated kitchen and bathrooms, joinery, installations), quality of the building and common areas, immediate surroundings. Every finding is photographed and dated.
• Rebuilding the micro-market. Collection of recent, verifiable comparison points in the Bourgogne district and its fringes: transactions and active listings in comparable buildings, cross-checked across several sources. Unverifiable references are discarded — a comparable that cannot be documented does not enter the report.
• An explicit adjustment grid. Each comparable is adjusted line by line: floor and lift, orientation and light, state of repair, standing of the building, parking, date of the reference. The reader — and therefore the credit committee — can follow the reasoning from the raw reference price through to the adjusted value.
• A conclusion in open market value, with a range and a confidence level. The report explicitly distinguishes open market value from the collateral value sought by the bank, and explains the probable origin of the gap between the two — without polemic, method against method.

In this file, the analysis confirmed that the agreed price sat within the district's market range for a property of this quality. The gap stemmed essentially from the comparables reference set and the flat-rate treatment of the property's qualitative features — two points our adjustment grid documented precisely.

4. The defence file: rebuilding the value, not contesting the bank

The report is not enough: it still has to be usable by the bank adviser, who will be the file's advocate internally. We therefore assembled, with Mr K., a three-part re-presentation file:

• The full report, with sourced comparables, the adjustment grid and photographic appendices — the substantive document, verifiable end to end.
• A two-page summary note for the committee: the property, the question asked, the method, the conclusion, and the factual explanation of the gap with the initial appraisal. A committee does not re-read forty pages; it reads two solid pages backed by forty available ones.
• A request for re-examination letter drafted with the client: a cooperative tone, no criticism of the initial appraiser, one simple request — that the new documented valuation be added to the file and the loan-to-value ratio recalculated accordingly.

The posture is decisive. A client who arrives saying “your appraiser got it wrong” puts the bank in the position of defending its provider. A client who brings “new and verifiable elements on the value of the property” allows it to reopen the file without losing face. It is the same logic we describe in what to do when the bank refuses your purchase price: you do not win against the bank, you win with it.

5. The outcome — and the honest limits of the exercise

The file was re-presented by the adviser with the summary note and the report in support. The committee agreed to re-examine the financing on the basis of the documented valuation, and Mr K.'s project was able to continue within the timetable of the condition precedent. Two important caveats, which we state to every client in this situation:

• The bank remains sovereign. No report is binding on a credit committee. The counter-appraisal creates the conditions for a serious re-examination; it does not guarantee it. Some institutions maintain their position — in which case the report also serves to renegotiate the price with the seller or to approach another bank with an already-documented file.
• The free (private) counter-appraisal belongs to the amicable framework. It is designed for dialogue: bank, seller, co-purchasers. In judicial litigation, it is the judge who appoints the expert — a private report is not binding on the court. This is not a weakness: in a credit file, everything plays out precisely on the amicable terrain, and that is where the document produces its effects.

The last lesson of this case: the reflex of accepting the gap without questioning it costs dearly. Whether it comes from a bank or an administration, a low offer or valuation accepted without independent verification is often money left on the table — our property counter-appraisal service exists precisely for these situations.

6. In practice: cost, timelines, when to call us

Since 2019, ReaConsult has carried out more than 5,000 appraisals across 6 cities in the Kingdom (rated 4.9/5 from 47 client reviews), including a growing share of counter-appraisals linked to financing files. The practical benchmarks:

• Fees: from 3,500 MAD net of tax for a residential apartment, firm quote within 24 hours after describing the property and the situation.
• Timelines: report within 5 to 8 working days after the visit, express format in 48-72 hours when the committee's or the condition precedent's deadline requires it.
• The right moment: as soon as the refusal is notified — or better, as soon as the adviser mentions a valuation issue. The earlier the counter-appraisal arrives, the more room for manoeuvre remains in the preliminary agreement's calendar.
• What to prepare: the preliminary agreement, the land title or ownership certificate, plans if available, and any element of the bank's appraisal communicated by the bank (value retained, visit date).

Going further

• Our property valuation services in Morocco — RICS-compliant reports, produced by RICS-certified experts.
• The full guide: bank counter-appraisal in Casablanca — when the bank undervalues your property.
• Back to the blog.

D. Hamza — ReaConsult. Anonymised case: identifying details have been changed; the methodology described is the one actually applied. Read the version française of this article.