Are all estate agents the same?

Markx

Another confusing episode with an EA - I'll deal with his (1) manner and (2) the bidding process separately.

1.) Manner: Did not and would not answer his phone. When asked why he wasn't answering his phone he said he didn't but he probably should. Despite going to the very end in the bidding process on this house, not once could I get this guy on his phone and he didn't even ask for my phone number at any point. I was happy enough with the arrangement as it meant a mail record of everything said (which makes for strange reading!!). I have ideas as to why he behaves in this manner but won't speculate here.

2.) Bidding: We went to view the house twice before making a bid. On both occasions we were there early and saw the other viewers being asked to return to their car for a few moments, allowing the owners to leave the property. At both viewings the washing machine was turned on making noise. At the first viewing there was no access to the back of the property.

We made a bid and got involved in the usual to-and-fro. When the bidding went over the asking price we were told the vendor was inviting best-and-final-offers (BAFO) and the deadline for this was over 1 week away. Then I noticed another viewing was organised in the meantime. This made the introduction of the BAFO process seem disingenuous.

For the BAFO we got a document which was clearly a copy'n'paste of some kind of repossessed property auction document. We made a BAFO which was very generous considering the current bidding level. Bid submitted 5pm Wednesday. Thursday no word from the EA. Sent a mail saying the bid was on the table until 5pm Friday, no acknowledgement. Friday afternoon got a mail to say our bid wasn't accepted. I asked if the sale was going ahead, no reply. End of story.

My question following this is: Is there a genuine intention to sell this property?

This is the latest in a series of very strange dealings with Dublin EAs.

As my old man put it in an email: "There seems to be a total lack of integrity in the property market nowadays."

dinnyirwin

I find that most shenanigans going on when bidding for a property is usually down to only two reasons. And because of these two reasons the estate agent is trying to follow the instructions of too many poeple and ends up annoying bidders in the process.

I always ask at the outset if one of these two scenarios is present and if it is then i bow out and do not waste my time.

1 - Separating couples. The amount of mind changing and being difficult just to **** over the other part of the couple about the sale is mind blowing.

2 - Executor sales where the estate agent is answering to more than one person. All of the people cant make up their minds and again the bidders are the ones who get the hassle.

Just dont get involved. Walk away if either of those scenarios is in play.

An estate agent, even more so than you or the vendor want the house sold as quickly as possible. The longer it goes on the mnore chance of it being taken off the market and he doesnt get his full fee. Its not the agent holding it up. That would be madness on his part. He is being forced to hold it up because there is fighting and non cooperation going on behind the scenes.

Markx

dinnyirwin wrote: »

Just dont get involved. Walk away if either of those scenarios is in play.

I agree with you there and I'm impressed you got the EA to admit anything. We had an inkling that one of the above was the case and asked if there was 'anything going on' here and he said 'no'.

Maybe the mistake was that we did not ask the specific questions.

cerastes

Markx wrote: »

Another confusing episode with an EA - I'll deal with his (1) manner and (2) the bidding process separately.

1.) Manner: Did not and would not answer his phone. When asked why he wasn't answering his phone he said he didn't but he probably should. Despite going to the very end in the bidding process on this house, not once could I get this guy on his phone and he didn't even ask for my phone number at any point. I was happy enough with the arrangement as it meant a mail record of everything said (which makes for strange reading!!). I have ideas as to why he behaves in this manner but won't speculate here.

2.) Bidding: We went to view the house twice before making a bid. On both occasions we were there early and saw the other viewers being asked to return to their car for a few moments, allowing the owners to leave the property. At both viewings the washing machine was turned on making noise. At the first viewing there was no access to the back of the property.

We made a bid and got involved in the usual to-and-fro. When the bidding went over the asking price we were told the vendor was inviting best-and-final-offers (BAFO) and the deadline for this was over 1 week away. Then I noticed another viewing was organised in the meantime. This made the introduction of the BAFO process seem disingenuous.

For the BAFO we got a document which was clearly a copy'n'paste of some kind of repossessed property auction document. We made a BAFO which was very generous considering the current bidding level. Bid submitted 5pm Wednesday. Thursday no word from the EA. Sent a mail saying the bid was on the table until 5pm Friday, no acknowledgement. Friday afternoon got a mail to say our bid wasn't accepted. I asked if the sale was going ahead, no reply. End of story.

My question following this is: Is there a genuine intention to sell this property?

This is the latest in a series of very strange dealings with Dublin EAs.

As my old man put it in an email: "There seems to be a total lack of integrity in the property market nowadays."

Sounds like they are selling a property that is about to be auctioned off and are getting a buyer before they buy it??? who knows, Im sure stranger things could happen?
Cant think I could agree with the other poster, as how does that explain an Agent not answering the phone or any communication which many posters have brought up???

rickyjb

Looking at a house that is in the possesion of a receiver. Attempted to bid on the property but was told by the EA that a copy of the mortgage approval letter was required for bidding on all receivership properties. Spoke to him a couple of days later to clarify some other things and was told that an offer 10k above the adding price had been made. Haven't made any move myself yet, just curious as to whether he is pulling a fast one or whether this is actually normal procedure.

MouseTail

rickyjb wrote: »

Looking at a house that is in the possesion of a receiver. Attempted to bid on the property but was told by the EA that a copy of the mortgage approval letter was required for bidding on all receivership properties.......
Haven't made any move myself yet, just curious as to whether he is pulling a fast one or whether this is actually normal procedure.

common practice that proof of funds is required before placing bids on properties in receivership. If you do not want to reveal your hand, get your broker to write a letter saying you are approved for x (the amount of your bid).

makeorbrake

yankinlk wrote: »

There will never be any transparncy in the irish home buying/selling process untill a seperate agent that can represent both buyer and seller enter this market.

Isn't that going totally the opposite direction!? I understand for more upper market properties with a higher price tag, there is a case whereby an EA can achieve a significantly better outcome for the seller. However, for the vast majority of our housing stock, I can't - for the life of me - understand why we still use EA's!

Within this thread, someone said there should be more professional regulation - but I would argue the opposite. Let anyone punt for the business of showing a property - let them sink or swim on the basis of their success or failure in that endeavour. Running alongside that, for those that have the time and stomach, let the actual sellers show the property.

Buyer's are now concentrated on daft/myhome. EA's no longer bring buyer and seller together in that sense. The only bearing they now have is in how the property is shown.

yankinlk

i have bought and sold with EAs and also sold myself. Selling myself was no picnic and many people would not like the hassle of it or be able to handle buyer feedback as just business.

there is always room for diy selling, i was not suggesting otherwise. at the moment, that is literally all we have to leverage the current conditions, ea's forcing seller contracts forbidding competition from other ea's.

if the ea's can get away with that kind of carry on in this market, i have to ask is there any regulation at all!? to suggest it should descend into a totally unregulated market with no rules on how to carry out business is just...madness.

makeorbrake

yankinlk wrote: »

if the ea's can get away with that kind of carry on in this market, i have to ask is there any regulation at all!? to suggest it should descend into a totally unregulated market with no rules on how to carry out business is just...madness.

The consensus is that you can't trust ONE word that comes out of an EA's mouth. On that basis alone, what regulation are you going to apply. Cut the ****ers out of the market completely (well, not completely but for the run of the mill housing stock!

yankinlk

i hear ya. call me diogenes, in search of the honest ea. my dad was one, i have to believe they still exist.

Shedzafew

How different would it be if people were to sell their houses themselves? I don't think there are any regulations in place to prevent the vendor from behaving a lot more unethically than an EA could ever. At least EAs have the protection that people who they have messed around do not know where they live......people who sell directly may not have this privilege.

borderlinemeath

Shedzafew wrote: »

How different would it be if people were to sell their houses themselves? I don't think there are any regulations in place to prevent the vendor from behaving a lot more unethically than an EA could ever. At least EAs have the protection that people who they have messed around do not know where they live......people who sell directly may not have this privilege.

How so? If they're selling it, they most likely will have it sold if there's disgruntled underbidders, and if you're selling yourself you're less likely to mess potential buyers in the first place. All correspondence will be through solicitors so they wouldn't have to disclose a forwarding address.

makeorbrake

Shedzafew wrote: »

How different would it be if people were to sell their houses themselves?

3% difference! That's exactly the point.

Shedzafew

I am not defending EAs in any way, shape or form. I'm would be curious to see that if a larger amount of people started to sell their houses themselves if the alleged malpractices of EAs were seen in direct sellers as a result of no regulation. e.g phantom bidders, looking for more money after a holding deposit has been paid.

I think people selling their homes directly would be a lot more motivated to get a higher price for their home versus EA's that only see very small increases in their commission at the later stages of bidding wars.

3% seems very high to me. I thought 1-1.5% was the norm?

dinnyirwin

Shedzafew wrote: »

I am not defending EAs in any way, shape or form. I'm would be curious to see that if a larger amount of people started to sell their houses themselves if the alleged malpractices of EAs were seen in direct sellers as a result of no regulation. e.g phantom bidders, looking for more money after a holding deposit has been paid.

I think people selling their homes directly would be a lot more motivated to get a higher price for their home versus EA's that only see very small increases in their commission at the later stages of bidding wars.

3% seems very high to me. I thought 1-1.5% was the norm?

1% is even too high.
You should be able to negotiate a fixed price. I found about €1000 to €1500 is the norm for a fixed price.
An agent isnt going to make or lose a whole lot on a difference of 20 or 30k if they are on a %, so despite what people think agents arent holding out for a higher price. If anybody is its the vendor telling the agent to hold out.
An agent wants the place sold and the money in his pocket ASAP.

Same with people using an agent for rent. I have seen people pay an agent 10% of the yearly rent just for getting them a tenant. You should pay an agent no more than 8 - 10% per year for getting the tenant AND managing the property.

Its eejits that pay more.

makeorbrake

Shedzafew wrote: »

I am not defending EAs in any way, shape or form. I'm would be curious to see that if a larger amount of people started to sell their houses themselves if the alleged malpractices of EAs were seen in direct sellers as a result of no regulation. e.g phantom bidders, looking for more money after a holding deposit has been paid.

I think people selling their homes directly would be a lot more motivated to get a higher price for their home versus EA's that only see very small increases in their commission at the later stages of bidding wars.

3% seems very high to me. I thought 1-1.5% was the norm?

For sure - but there's no amount of regulation that will stamp that out - it's next to impossible to prove. At the end of the day - it's like any other market item. i.e. the price of something is what the seller and the buyer agree on.

Do we really need a middleman for that? Perhaps there should be a new service provider in the mix and the estate agent taken out i.e. professionals who come in and get a house prep'ed for viewings.

yankinlk

i hate when yanks go on about, "in my country they do it this way" but it must be said that agents their not only help people find their dream homes, they also perform the solicitors duties of closing. so maybe the middle man is the solicitor.

makeorbrake

yankinlk wrote: »

i hate when yanks go on about, "in my country they do it this way" but it must be said that agents their not only help people find their dream homes, they also perform the solicitors duties of closing. so maybe the middle man is the solicitor.

With the exception of bespoke homes at the higher end, don't think "help people find their dream homes" should be part of the service remit.

Prepping a home for viewings with the option for the customer (seller) to avail of an agent showing the property (and I stress "optional") would be a better repositioning for that business sector for the good of consumers.

If they could get involved with the legal work, that would be optimal. However, in Ireland, good luck with that! Of all the professions thats in need of TOTAL reform and regulation (as opposed to the in-house - cover up any issue - regulation currently in place) is in far far more need of reform than EA's will ever be!

yankinlk

makeorbrake wrote: »

With the exception of bespoke homes at the higher end, don't think "help people find their dream homes" should be part of the service remit. !

Every person that searches for a home, no matter the budget, size or location is buying a dream. an agent that matches a person or couple to that home should get tremendous satisfaction out of a job well done, it does not have to be only about commission.

makeorbrake

yankinlk wrote: »

Every person that searches for a home, no matter the budget, size or location is buying a dream. an agent that matches a person or couple to that home should get tremendous satisfaction out of a job well done, it does not have to be only about commission.

Fair enough. I just feel for general housing stock, there's no need for an EA (in their present form) to share in this 'joyous' event....along with the commission of course

poppy1974

Would anybody know if Celbridge Abbey in Celbridge is a good estate for small kids?
Any info much appreciated

on_my_oe

poppy1974 wrote: »

Would anybody know if Celbridge Abbey in Celbridge is a good estate for small kids?
Any info much appreciated

You might be better posting in the Regions / East / Kildare forum http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=936 as you get more answers from locals

Good luck