# Summit APC Mock Interview - Valuation

## Script B (second variant, for repeat practice)

> Same 60-minute structure as Script A. A different valuation purpose so you do not memorise answers, you build judgement. Script A was a Market Value for financial reporting; Script B is a Market Value for secured lending. Read aloud with a counsellor or study partner playing the chairperson and technical assessor. Answer cold, in the time bands, then grade with the panel marking sheet.
>
> Scenarios are generic and illustrative. No real firm, client, or transaction is named. Your live answers must come from your own Summary of Experience and case study.

---

## Candidate brief (generic, Script B)

You are a Valuation candidate practising in the region. Your case study this time is a **Red Book Market Value for secured lending**, instructed by a bank that is considering a loan against a multi-let commercial property with a development angle: part of the site has the potential for refurbishment or redevelopment. Your declared optional competencies include **Loan security valuation (L3)** and **Development appraisals (L2)**. Your day-to-day work covers inspection, measurement, and valuation across office, retail, and industrial assets for secured lending, financial reporting, and transactional purposes.

---

## Interview structure (same as Script A)

| Stage | Time | Who leads |
|---|---|---|
| Candidate presentation on the case study | 10 min | Candidate |
| Questions on the presentation | 10 min | Technical assessor and chair |
| Discussion on overall experience, including CPD, Rules of Conduct, professional practice | 30 min | Technical assessor (core/optional) and chair (mandatory) |
| Chairperson's areas of questioning and close | 10 min | Chair |
| **Total** | **60 min** | |

Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, "Interview structure".

---

## Stage 1 - Presentation (10 minutes)

**Chair opening:** "Good morning. I am the chairperson, my colleague is the technical assessor. Please show us a full scan of the room. Thank you. You have ten minutes for your case study. Please keep to time."

**[MODEL PRESENTATION SHAPE]**
- The instruction: who instructed you (the lender), the purpose (secured lending), the basis (Market Value), the interest valued, the addressee and reliance position, and the valuation date.
- The asset: the multi-let property, its tenancy schedule in summary, the development angle, the value drivers, and the principal risks.
- The key issues: income security and lease structure, the suitability of the property as loan security, the marketability if the lender had to repossess, and the existing-use value against any redevelopment upside.
- The options considered and rejected, with reasoning: for example whether to value the existing investment alone, or to comment on the redevelopment potential as a special assumption, and which method you used.
- Your conclusion, the security-specific commentary, any special assumptions, the standards you complied with, and the lessons learned.

**Self-marking note - what the panel listens for:** structure, time discipline, your own role isolated, the lending lens (suitability, marketability on repossession), and a conclusion that gives the lender reasoned advice. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, "Weighting".

**Red flag:** reading a script, presenting a number with no security commentary, team work described as your own, no statement of basis, purpose, and standard.

---

## Stage 2 - Questions on the presentation (10 minutes)

### Q1. You valued for secured lending. What did you put in your terms of engagement and report that you would not put in a financial reporting valuation?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Loan security valuation L3 plus Client care L2]**
- I confirmed the purpose as secured lending, that the lender is the client and the addressee, and how any reliance by the borrower is controlled, by a separate term, not by silence.
- I ran a conflict of interest check, which is especially live in lending work, and I disclosed any previous involvement with the property or the parties.
- I built in security-specific commentary the accounts version would not need: a SWOT or strengths-and-weaknesses analysis, comment on the lease terms and income security, future performance of the investment, and the wider market influences.
- I addressed suitability as loan security: marketability, and what would happen to value and the likely timescale if the lender repossessed and had to sell.

**Self-marking note:** the panel wants the purpose driving the scope. Secured lending triggers conflict checks, addressee and reliance control, the SWOT, and the repossession-and-resale lens. The pathway guide L3 descriptor names these.

**Red flag:** treating the lending valuation as the accounts valuation with the addressee changed. Forgetting the conflict check. No repossession angle.

**Cites:** RICS Valuation - Global Standards (Red Book Global), December 2024, effective 31 January 2025, VPS 1 (terms of engagement), VPGA 2 (valuations for secured lending), PS 2 section 3 (independence, objectivity, conflicts). Valuation Pathway Guide December 2025, Loan security valuation L3 descriptor.

### Q2. The site had a development angle. How did you reflect the redevelopment potential in a lending valuation?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Loan security valuation L3 plus Development appraisals L2]**
- I valued the existing investment on its current income and lease structure first, because that is the security the lender is actually lending against today.
- I then considered the redevelopment potential separately. If hope value or a consented scheme was relevant, I addressed it transparently, and where I assumed a planning consent not yet granted I treated it as a special assumption, agreed and reported.
- I advised the lender plainly on the difference between the secure existing-use value and any speculative redevelopment upside, so they did not lend against a value that depends on consents and works that have not happened.
- I disclosed the planning risk and any valuation uncertainty, and I confirmed the planning position from the authority or the client's planning adviser rather than assuming it.

**Self-marking note:** the panel listens for the existing-use value as the lending floor, redevelopment upside handled separately and transparently, special assumptions where consent is assumed, and clear advice to the lender on what is secure and what is speculative.

**Red flag:** lending value built on an un-consented redevelopment. Making a planning judgement yourself. Mixing hope value into the secure figure without flagging it.

**Cites:** Red Book Global December 2024, VPS 2 (special assumptions), VPGA 2 (secured lending). RICS Valuation of Development Property (current professional standard). Valuation Pathway Guide December 2025, Development appraisals and Loan security valuation descriptors.

### Q3. You said one tenant's covenant was weak. Walk me through what you did about it.
**[MODEL ANSWER - Valuation L3 / Loan security valuation L3]**
- I established the covenant position: the tenant's financial standing, payment history, and the likely outcome for that unit, because covenant strength is a core value and security driver.
- I treated that income as at risk and valued the unit on the most supportable basis, which here meant a softer yield on that slice of income and an allowance for a possible void and reletting at estimated rental value.
- I disclosed this to the lender clearly, because it bears directly on security cover, and I noted the uncertainty it introduced.
- I confirmed the legal position on the lease with the client's solicitor rather than making a legal judgement myself, in line with relying on appropriate sources.

**Self-marking note:** the panel listens for covenant risk recognised, a defensible pricing of that risk, clear disclosure to the lender, and verification of the legal position rather than guesswork. This is L3 reasoned advice.

**Red flag:** ignoring covenant risk and valuing the unit at full passing rent. Making a legal judgement about the lease yourself.

**Cites:** Red Book Global December 2024, VPS 2, VPS 5, VPGA 2 (secured lending). Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 1.5 (advice on reliable evidence). Valuation Pathway Guide December 2025, Loan security valuation L3 descriptor.

---

## Stage 3 - Discussion on overall experience (30 minutes)

### Core: Inspection (L3)

#### Q4. How did you approach the inspection for this lending valuation, and what reasoned advice came out of it?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Inspection L3]**
- Before: desktop review of title, planning, tenancy schedule, and any prior reports, then a dynamic risk assessment for safety under RICS Surveying Safely, and confirmation of access.
- On site: a systematic record of construction, age, condition, services, specification, energy performance, and statutory compliance, with photographs against a checklist so the record is auditable.
- Defects and limits: I identified potential defects and where a specialist was needed, and I did not overstate what a visual inspection can confirm.
- Reasoned advice on value: I advised the lender on how location, quantum, and obsolescence affected value and marketability, on reinstatement and repair cost implications, and on any statutory responsibilities, for example asbestos in a building of that age.

**Self-marking note:** L3 needs reasoned advice arising from the inspection, the safety dynamic risk assessment, an auditable record, and the limits of your competence. The pathway guide ties Inspection L3 to value: location, quantum, and obsolescence. Source: Valuation Pathway Guide December 2025, Inspection L3 descriptor.

**Red flag:** no safety assessment. Diagnosing beyond competence. No advice linking condition to value and to the lending decision.

**Cites:** RICS Surveying Safely, 2nd edition (reissued July 2023, professional standard). RICS Technical Due Diligence of Commercial Property, 1st edition (reissued April 2023). Valuation Pathway Guide December 2025, Inspection L3.

#### Q5. An older building can carry asbestos and other deleterious materials. How do you handle that on inspection and in your valuation advice?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Inspection L3 plus Health and safety]**
- I treat a building of the relevant era as potentially containing asbestos and I do not disturb suspect materials. I check for an asbestos register and management survey where one should exist.
- I advise the client of the duty to manage asbestos and recommend a specialist survey before any works, refurbishment, or redevelopment.
- I caveat my inspection and the valuation accordingly, and I record the limitation, because a confirmed issue affects repair cost, marketability, and value.

**Self-marking note:** the panel listens for the duty to manage, no disturbance, a specialist referral, and a clear caveat tied to value. This is reasoned advice plus a safety thread.

**Red flag:** disturbing or sampling suspect material yourself. Not advising the client of the management duty. Not caveating the valuation.

**Cites:** RICS Surveying Safely, 2nd edition (reissued July 2023). Valuation Pathway Guide December 2025, Inspection L3.

**Jurisdictional note:** ZW: asbestos and contaminated-land duties engage the Environmental Management Act [Chapter 20:27] and EMA. SA: National Environmental Management Act and asbestos regulations. UAE: municipal environmental controls. The professional discipline of "do not disturb, refer to a specialist, caveat the valuation" is the same everywhere.

### Core: Valuation (L3)

#### Q6. The income was secure but the lease was short. How did the short unexpired term change your method and the figure?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Valuation L3]**
- A short unexpired term raises reletting and void risk, which the market prices through a softer yield and explicit allowances for voids, rent-free periods, and reletting costs.
- I reflected this through a term-and-reversion approach: the contracted rent over the unexpired term, then estimated rental value on reversion, with a void and incentive allowance at expiry.
- I cross-checked with an all-risks yield on the rack-rented value and, where the timing risk was material, a discounted cash flow that models the void explicitly. I tested sensitivity to the void period and the reversionary yield.
- The net effect was a lower capital value than a long-income asset of the same rent roll, which is exactly what the lender needs to understand for security cover.

**Self-marking note:** the panel listens for a clear link between the risk (short term) and the mechanism (yield plus explicit cash flow allowances), a cross-check, and sensitivity testing. This is L3 investment valuation.

**Red flag:** "I used the investment method" with no explanation of how the short term changed the inputs. A single higher yield with no void analysis.

**Cites:** Red Book Global December 2024, VPS 5 (valuation approaches and methods). RICS DCF for Commercial Property Investments, 1st edition. Valuation Pathway Guide December 2025, Valuation L3 descriptor.

#### Q7. When would you use a discounted cash flow rather than a simple yield capitalisation, and what are the risks of a DCF?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Valuation L3]**
- I use a DCF where the cash flow is irregular or has timing events a single yield cannot capture: a short lease with a known reversion, an over-rented step down, phased lettings, a rent-free run-in, or a development period.
- The DCF lets me model each cash flow explicitly and apply a discount rate that reflects the risk, then I reconcile the implied yield against market evidence so the model is grounded in the market, not just in the spreadsheet.
- The risks: a DCF is only as good as its inputs, and small changes in the discount rate, growth, or exit yield move the answer a lot, so I run sensitivity and I am transparent about the assumptions.
- I do not let the DCF override the market: if the comparable evidence and the DCF diverge, I explain why rather than hiding behind the model.

**Self-marking note:** the panel listens for the right use cases for a DCF, reconciliation of the implied yield to market evidence, sensitivity awareness, and a refusal to let the model beat the market. Strong L3.

**Red flag:** treating the DCF output as more reliable than the market because it has more decimal places. No sensitivity. No reconciliation to comparable yields.

**Cites:** Red Book Global December 2024, VPS 5. RICS DCF for Commercial Property Investments, 1st edition; RICS Discounted Cash Flow Valuations (current professional standard). Valuation Pathway Guide December 2025, Valuation L3 descriptor.

### Core: Measurement (L2)

#### Q8. For this valuation you needed areas. What did you measure, on what basis, and why?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Measurement L2]**
- I measured the lettable areas on a stated basis (IPMS where supported, with the local convention stated where my evidence sits there), because the area drives rent and value.
- Where the development option was relevant I worked with the architect's gross internal and gross external areas to inform the developable area and any cost estimate, and I was explicit about which basis each figure was on.
- I matched accuracy to purpose, checked calculations, and disclosed any areas I relied on from a third party as an assumption.

**Self-marking note:** L2 needs the right basis for each purpose (lettable area for value, gross areas for cost or development), explicit bases, and no mixing without saying so.

**Red flag:** using one area for everything. Mixing gross cost areas with net value areas silently.

**Cites:** IPMS: All Buildings (effective 15 January 2023). RICS Code of Measuring Practice, 6th edition (May 2015), for GIA, GEA, NIA. Valuation Pathway Guide December 2025, Measurement L2.

#### Q9. What are the main sources of error when you measure, and how do you control them?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Measurement L2]**
- Sources: instrument calibration, irregular and stepped floors, columns and risers, and inconsistent application of the basis.
- Controls: calibrated instruments, a consistent and stated basis, checked calculations, and independent checking on higher-value assets.
- I label any relied-upon third-party areas as an assumption, because the area is only as good as its source.

**Self-marking note:** the panel listens for a realistic grasp of error and accuracy tied to purpose. Same standard as Script A, different framing. Note Measurement L3 is reserved for geospatial specialists; L2 is correct for most valuers.

**Cites:** Valuation Pathway Guide December 2025, Measurement L2 (sources of error, accuracy required for purpose). RICS Code of Measuring Practice, 6th edition (May 2015).

### Optional: Loan security valuation (L3)

#### Q10. The lender asked whether the property is suitable as loan security at all. How did you answer that, and what if your answer was no?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Loan security valuation L3]**
- I gave the lender a reasoned view on suitability, not just a figure: I set out the strengths and weaknesses, the income security, the marketability, and the position on repossession and resale, including likely timescale and any discount a forced or quick sale might attract.
- Where a property is genuinely not suitable for secured lending, because of Red Book or lender requirements, I say so plainly and give reasoned advice on why, rather than forcing a figure to be helpful.
- I identify the factors that affect the ability to obtain finance, and I research matters that may affect valuation certainty, disclosing any material uncertainty.
- I keep the advice within my role: I inform the lending decision, I do not make it.

**Self-marking note:** the pathway guide L3 descriptor explicitly includes providing reasoned advice where a property is not considered suitable for secured lending. Candidates who can only ever produce a number, never a "this is not suitable", are weak here.

**Red flag:** always producing a lendable figure. Never having advised that a property is unsuitable. Straying into making the lending decision.

**Cites:** Valuation Pathway Guide December 2025, Loan security valuation L3 descriptor (suitability, marketability on repossession, reasoned advice where not suitable). Red Book Global December 2024, VPGA 2 (secured lending), VPGA 10 (material valuation uncertainty).

**Jurisdictional note:** ZW: lending valuers must be VCZ-registered under the Valuers Act [Chapter 27:18]; banks set their own panel requirements and currency and material uncertainty are routinely disclosed. SA: SACPVP registration and a deeper lending market. KE: VRB registration. UAE: TAQEEM and lender-panel rules.

### Mandatory: Communication and negotiation (L2)

#### Q11. Tell me about a time you had to deliver an unwelcome valuation conclusion to a client, and how you handled it.
**[MODEL ANSWER - Communication and negotiation L2]**
- I would give a real example: a figure below what the borrower or instructing party hoped for, or an opinion that a property was not suitable as security.
- I prepared with the evidence, I delivered the conclusion clearly and in writing, and I explained the reasoning so the client could understand it even if they did not like it.
- I held the evidenced position under pressure without becoming defensive, I listened to any new information they offered, and I revisited inputs only on the merits.
- I kept the client informed throughout and I documented the exchange.

**Self-marking note:** the panel listens for preparation, an evidenced position held firmly but courteously, clear written communication, and a refusal to move the figure to please. Communication is mandatory, so how you tell the story is itself marked, and it overlaps with ethics.

**Red flag:** a story with no evidence base, or one where you softened the figure to keep the client happy.

**Cites:** RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 3.7 (communicate clearly and in a way clients can understand). Valuation Pathway Guide December 2025, mandatory Communication and negotiation L2.

### Mandatory: Ethics and Rules of Conduct (L3, woven through)

#### Q12. (L3 scenario) The borrower's broker, who is a longstanding source of referrals, asks you to "support a slightly higher figure" so the loan-to-value works. Advise.
**[MODEL ANSWER - Ethics L3]**
- **Rules engaged:** Rule 1.1 (do not mislead), Rule 1.2 (not influenced improperly by referrals or self-interest), Rule 1.5 (honest, objective advice on reliable evidence), and Red Book PS 2 (independence and objectivity). The referral relationship makes Rule 1.2 acute.
- **Action recommended:** I decline to move the figure, that day, in writing. My opinion is evidence-based and does not change to fit a loan. I offer to revisit the comparables or methodology only on the merits, and only if I have missed evidence.
- **Documentation to create:** a file note of the request and my refusal, a written confirmation restating the basis of the figure, and a record of any conflict the referral relationship creates.
- **Escalation path:** if pressure continues, I escalate to my firm's compliance lead or responsible principal. If the firm pressures me to comply, that becomes a suspected significant breach reportable under Rule 5.9. I am prepared for the introducer to take their work elsewhere.

**Self-marking note:** L3 needs the Rule, the action, the documentation, and the escalation. The referral angle tests whether you spot Rule 1.2. "I would refuse" without the documentation and escalation is only half an L3 answer.

**Red flag:** "I would have a quiet word and meet them halfway." Treating disclosure of the referral relationship as a cure rather than a trigger. Missing Rule 5.9.

**Cites:** RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 5.9. Red Book Global December 2024, PS 2 sections 1 and 3.

#### Q13. (L3 scenario) Mid-instruction you realise your firm is also retained by the borrower on a different matter, and you were not told. What do you do?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Ethics L3 / Conflicts of Interest]**
- **Rules engaged:** Rule 1.3 (identify conflicts throughout), Rule 1.4 (firm processes and records), Rule 3.6 (communicate material information), potentially Rule 5.9.
- **Action recommended:** stop and assess the conflict type. A lending valuation requires independence from the borrower, so acting for the lender while the firm also acts for the borrower may be a party or own-interest conflict. Disclose to the affected client(s) in writing, and proceed only if informed consent and effective information barriers genuinely cure it; withdraw if they do not. Do not proceed on disclosure alone.
- **Documentation to create:** a conflicts memo, the written disclosures, any informed-consent letters, and a decision record.
- **Escalation path:** firm conflicts controller, then responsible principal; report to RICS under Rule 5.9 if a significant breach has occurred and is not remediated. Fix the intake process so cross-retainers surface earlier.

**Self-marking note:** the panel listens for recognition that lender independence is the point, that disclosure is not automatically a cure, the informed-consent and information-barrier conditions, and a system fix. Red Book PS 2 reinforces valuer independence.

**Red flag:** "I would put up a wall and carry on." Assuming consent automatically fixes a lending-independence conflict.

**Cites:** RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rules 1.3, 1.4, 3.6, 5.9. RICS Conflicts of Interest professional statement, 1st edition, December 2017. Red Book Global December 2024, PS 2 section 3.

#### Q14. What CPD have you done in the last year, and how did it change your practice?
**[MODEL ANSWER - CPD]**
- At least 20 hours a year, at least 10 formal, recorded and planned against my development needs.
- A real, recent example with an outcome, for example DCF or Red Book update training, and how it changed a piece of work.
- Linked to Rule 2.5 (maintain competence, comply with CPD) and Rule 2.6 (stay up to date). As a valuer I also keep current with my Registered Valuer obligations.

**Self-marking note:** correct obligation, real example, outcome, linked to Rule 2.

**Cites:** RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 2.5, Rule 2.6, Appendix A member obligation.

---

## Stage 4 - Chairperson's close (10 minutes)

### Q15. (Chair) Sustainability is increasingly material to value. How does it show up in your valuation work?
**[MODEL ANSWER - professional awareness plus Sustainability L1]**
- I would name the genuine mechanisms in my market: energy performance and running cost affecting occupier demand and rent, retrofit cost and obsolescence risk affecting value, and growing lender and investor disclosure expectations.
- I reflect it in inspection (energy performance, plant, fabric), in the valuation (a green premium or brown discount where evidenced, retrofit cost), and in advice.
- I follow the Red Book guidance on sustainability and valuation, and I tie it to Rule 3.10, encouraging solutions that minimise harm and deliver balanced economic, social, and environmental benefits.

**Self-marking note:** the chair listens for genuine, mechanism-level engagement, not a slogan, and for awareness that sustainability advice is usually given in the course of conventional valuation advice. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024, questioning on issues of current concern.

**Red flag:** "sustainability is important" with no mechanism and no evidence of how you apply it in a valuation.

**Cites:** RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rule 3.10. Red Book Global December 2024, VPGA 8 (valuation and sustainability). RICS Sustainability and ESG, 3rd edition standard (May 2023). Valuation Pathway Guide December 2025, Sustainability L1 mandatory.

### Q16. (Chair, final ethics close) You are offered a generous gift by a client just after delivering a favourable valuation. What do you do?
**[MODEL ANSWER - Ethics L3 close]**
- **Rules engaged:** Rule 1.2 (not influenced improperly by gifts or hospitality), Rule 1.1 (integrity), and firm gift-and-hospitality policy. For a valuer, independence under Red Book PS 2 sharpens the point.
- **Action recommended:** I check my firm's gifts and hospitality policy and threshold. A modest, transparent token may be acceptable; a generous gift tied to a favourable valuation is not, because it risks the appearance of improper influence. I would decline or refer it to the policy threshold, and I would record it on the gifts register.
- **Documentation to create:** an entry on the gifts and hospitality register and a note of my decision.
- **Escalation path:** the firm's compliance lead where the value or the timing crosses the policy threshold; consider whether it indicates a wider integrity risk.

**Self-marking note:** the chair listens for the appearance test (could a reasonable person think it influenced your valuation), the firm policy and register, and a proportionate response. Both "I would never accept anything" and "a gift is just good manners" are too blunt.

**Red flag:** accepting without reference to any policy. No register, no threshold, no appearance test.

**Cites:** RICS Rules of Conduct 2021, Rules 1.1, 1.2. Red Book Global December 2024, PS 2 section 3.

### Chair close (verbatim shape)
**Chair:** "Thank you. That concludes the interview. You will hear the result through RICS. We will not indicate the outcome today. Thank you for your time."

**Self-marking note:** no result is ever signalled. A warm close is not a pass. Source: RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024.

---

## Standards cited in Script B

- RICS APC Assessor Guide, February 2024 (interview structure, questioning, marking).
- RICS Valuation Pathway Guide, December 2025, Version 1.1 (core and optional descriptors and levels).
- RICS Rules of Conduct, Global, October 2021, effective 2 February 2022 (the five Rules and Appendix A).
- RICS Valuation - Global Standards (Red Book Global), December 2024, effective 31 January 2025 (PS 2, VPS 1, VPS 2, VPS 3, VPS 5, VPGA 2, VPGA 8, VPGA 10).
- RICS Conflicts of Interest professional statement, 1st edition, December 2017.
- RICS Surveying Safely, 2nd edition, reissued July 2023 as a RICS professional standard.
- IPMS: All Buildings (effective 15 January 2023); RICS Code of Measuring Practice, 6th edition (May 2015).
- RICS DCF for Commercial Property Investments, 1st edition; RICS Discounted Cash Flow Valuations (current professional standard).
- RICS Valuation of Development Property (current professional standard).
- RICS Technical Due Diligence of Commercial Property, 1st edition (reissued April 2023).
- RICS Sustainability and ESG, 3rd edition standard (May 2023).

---

*This material is a study aid only and is not a substitute for the source RICS standards. Always verify the cited paragraph against the source standard before relying on this answer in a formal setting. Scenarios are generic and illustrative; no real firm, client, or transaction is named. Final responsibility for compliance rests with the candidate and their firm.*

*Summit APC Academy - Mentorship without borders.*