Exception Register — Property Valuation Report
A valuation exception register is not a page of vague “comments on the appraisal,” and it is not the place to store every property risk. It is a control record for differences that prevent clean reliance on a particular report: a unit-identity mismatch, missing annex, date that predates a material change, purpose inconsistent with the intended use, an unavailable later report, or a conflict between the data inspected by the valuer and the data governing the transaction. Every item should be understandable and capable of objective closure without relying on anyone’s memory.
Write the exception as a testable fact
For example: “The report dated 12 March 2026 identifies unit B-14; the current registry and purchase contract identify B-12; no document linking those identifiers has been supplied.” Do not write “valuation problem.” Another good entry might say: “The copy received does not contain the annex showing the comparable evidence.” Precision makes the required closure evidence obvious from the start.
Keep the register within scope
Appropriate items include property-identity differences, area or appurtenance differences material to what was valued, an unclear report reference, missing pages, an inspection date inconsistent with a known later alteration, a purpose mismatch, two reports with different values or dates and no defined controlling version, or a transaction change that calls prior reliance into question. A mortgage belongs in the encumbrance review and a structural defect belongs in technical due diligence, even if both can affect economic value.
Name both sides of the conflict
Each exception should cite the source creating the discrepancy and the source capable of resolving it. For a unit-number issue, link the valuation and the registry or approved project evidence. For an incomplete report, record the received filename and expected complete reference. If the issue is whether a valuation is required for the transaction at all, use the current TKGM instruction rather than a seller’s interpretation.
Describe the decision consequence
State what the open issue prevents. Does it stop the reviewer from proving that the report concerns the same asset? Does it prevent use for a regulatory purpose? Does it affect only the investment price analysis? Is it immaterial after identity is formally reconciled? Labels such as “high” or “medium” are not enough. A new reviewer should know whether signature, payment, finance submission, regulatory filing or valuation-based investment approval is blocked.
Define closure evidence before chasing it
The requirement may be a complete final copy, an official bridge between unit numbers, a later valuation, verification through the authorised process, or a written professional explanation of a difference that cannot be removed. “The seller says it is normal” is not closure. A newer report is not automatically closure either: check whether it resolves the original issue or creates a different one.
Distinguish correction from risk acceptance
A buyer may choose to continue with an unresolved valuation issue. Do not relabel that outcome as “closed.” Use a separate accepted-risk status identifying the decision-maker, reason and any contractual or financial protection. A negotiated sale price different from a valuation can be a legitimate commercial decision; inability to prove that the report concerns the purchased unit is a different category of problem.
Attach real deadlines
Use transaction control points rather than “ASAP”: before the withdrawal period ends, before a non-refundable payment, before a finance application, before an official submission, or before title transfer. If a deadline is missed, record who authorised the extension and what consequence follows. Where the exception is a condition of payment, connect it explicitly to the payment-release gate.
Control versions
Preserve each report with its own reference and date. Do not overwrite a file using the same generic name. When a later report arrives, record which exceptions it closes and whether it introduces new changes. This avoids a common failure in which five similar PDFs circulate and the team cannot reconstruct which one supported a payment decision.
Quality test
The register is working when an independent reviewer can see for every item: the exact discrepancy, conflicting sources, transaction effect, responsible person, objective closure evidence, deadline and current status. If the reviewer must phone the broker to ask what a note means, the register is not yet auditable.
Official-source discipline
Use TKGM’s current valuation-report instructions and official notices to determine the regulatory scope and procedure. The requirement for foreign transactions has changed over time, so the file should identify the official rule set actually relied on at the decision date rather than repeating an old market assumption.