In the push for speed and efficiency, the mortgage market has changed beyond recognition. Decisions that once took days are now made in seconds and Automated Valuation Models (AVMs), desktop assessments and title insurance have become part of everyday lending. However, with all this progress, it’s worth asking a simple question – when a deal goes wrong, who’s really protecting the customer?

This isn’t about resisting technology, far from it, it’s about recognising that shortcuts, however convenient, can sometimes shift responsibility. When automation replaces inspection, or when risk is insured rather than examined, lenders lose some of the direct understanding they need of the property behind the loan.

Is caveat emptor still enough?

The UK’s housing stock is old, complex, and increasingly unpredictable. Victorian terraces, post-war builds, conversions, and flats with varying materials all carry their own quirks. Expecting buyers to uncover every issue under caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) feels outdated.

All too many buyers still assume that the lender’s valuation is a property health check, unaware that it’s simply a security check for the loan. This means that unless borrowers commission their own survey, they’re often buying blind and, in a data-rich world, that gap in understanding remains one of the biggest risks in the market.

AVMs and insurance-backed models certainly have their place. For standard homes, they deliver quick, consistent results but no algorithm can see inside a roof void, check for damp, or spot subsidence. And no insurance policy can undo the stress for a borrower who discovers an issue months after completion.

Lenders have long argued that these tools don’t increase risk; they just manage it differently. But when loans do go bad, responsibility becomes blurred and relying on indemnities to catch mistakes might protect balance sheets, but it doesn’t protect consumers. And in a market built on trust, that simple fact really matters.

The right valuation method depends on the property, not just the loan size and the key is applying professional judgement to decide which approach fits. Our GeoConnect platform shows how this balance can work as it analyses live property and environmental data to recommend whether an AVM, desktop or full inspection is most suitable. It blends speed with accountability and uses data to support decisions, not replace them.

When technology meets human judgement

Modern valuation relies on data like never before. Environmental risk, EPC performance, cladding safety, and flood exposure now shape lending decisions. Technology helps connect these factors quickly, but it can’t make the final call. That still requires professional experience that sees beyond data points to the real-world impact on a home’s value and condition.

Brokers, lenders, and surveyors each play a role in protecting customers. Consumer Duty has raised the bar for transparency in advice, but the same standard should apply to the property itself. If automation or insurance replaces a full inspection, borrowers should understand what that means and where the limits are.

For lenders, that transparency builds trust. For borrowers, it helps prevent future shocks. For the industry, it ensures accountability doesn’t get lost behind the technology.

Technology will keep advancing, and rightly so, but responsibility can’t be delegated to algorithms or indemnity clauses. True protection means owning the risk, not shifting it, and it means using the right valuation at the right time by people who understand both the property and the person buying it. Because protecting the customer isn’t a just technical challenge, it’s also a moral one.

Matthew Cumber is managing director, Countrywide Surveying Services