Bizarre bidding on property

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Just to re-iterate, we were prepared to walk away. It made making our 'final' offer and deadline very easy for us. However if you really want the property, you'll need to play the game.

I suggest you ring the EA with your final offer but also ask for viewings for any other similar properties he/she has on the market. It should hopefully make it clear that you're interested but you are willing to walk away as well.

spaceHopper

If you don't trust him and have made up your mind to walk then maybe pop a note in the door of the house

jos_kel

spaceHopper wrote: »

If you don't trust him and have made up your mind to walk then maybe pop a note in the door of the house

House went sale agreed over the Xmas without the EA reverting to us (the underbidders - which is common courtesy).
Popped a note in the letter box yesterday, explained that we had bid and then told there were higher bids, following which the Office told my wife (pretending to be a 3rd party) that the highest offer was ours.
Also said the at the EA never reverted to us before it going sale agreed.
Kept the note very factual, being careful not to be accusitive.
House owner replied saying they were not happy and would like to follow the matter up. Not quite sure if the ship has sailed at this stage. I've asked them what the sale price was.
I suppose there's a slight chance, that if contracts haven't been signed they could back out and possibly do a better deal with us.
Either way, at least we're both aware of the EA's antics.

MarkAnthony

Well done. I hope more people follow suit - hopefully EA's might start getting the message that people aren't stupid and are fed up being messed about. I truly believe it's more incompetence than anything else but either way good to see parties following up.

davo10

jos_kel wrote: »

House went sale agreed over the Xmas without the EA reverting to us (the underbidders - which is common courtesy).
Popped a note in the letter box yesterday, explained that we had bid and then told there were higher bids, following which the Office told my wife (pretending to be a 3rd party) that the highest offer was ours.
Also said the at the EA never reverted to us before it going sale agreed.
Kept the note very factual, being careful not to be accusitive.
House owner replied saying they were not happy and would like to follow the matter up. Not quite sure if the ship has sailed at this stage. I've asked them what the sale price was.
I suppose there's a slight chance, that if contracts haven't been signed they could back out and possibly do a better deal with us.
Either way, at least we're both aware of the EA's antics.

Unless you are willing to bid significantly above what has been accepted, the vendor would not risk calling off a sale which has progressed for over a month, no matter how annoyed they are.

davo10

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Well done. I hope more people follow suit - hopefully EA's might start getting the message that people aren't stupid and are fed up being messed about. I truly believe it's more incompetence than anything else but either way good to see parties following up.

But don't you agree that buyers who place bids/deposits on multiple properties have the same effect as EAs inventing phantom bidders. ie to inflate the price and make it more likely that the buyer has to pay more that s(he) otherwise should/would have?

It is possible that if EAs catch wind of that, they advise the vendor that the bidder has a lot of irons in the fire and it may be wiser to accept a bid from someone focused only on, and commited to this one property.

The buyer who's bid was accepted on the ops property may have seemed a better prospect than the op, s(he) may have been a cash buyer. Maybe the EA felt that the op was a shakier prospect.

If I got a letter from an unhappy underbidder, someone I don't know but who knows where I live through the letter box of my home, I'd be a little unnerved and probably tell them whatever it takes for them to not bother me again.

JuliusCaesar

jos_kel wrote: »

House went sale agreed over the Xmas without the EA reverting to us (the underbidders - which is common courtesy).
Popped a note in the letter box yesterday, explained that we had bid and then told there were higher bids, following which the Office told my wife (pretending to be a 3rd party) that the highest offer was ours.

Are you saying that you weren't actually the underbidders, that you had in fact offered MORE for the house than it has gone sale agreed for? That the owner/seller would have got a few grand more if your offer had been accepted? That would make you the top bidder, not the underbidder.

jos_kel

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Are you saying that you weren't actually the underbidders, that you had in fact offered MORE for the house than it has gone sale agreed for? That the owner/seller would have got a few grand more if your offer had been accepted? That would make you the top bidder, not the underbidder.

What I can say for certain is the facts.
We raised the bid once, then twice over the space of a week, my wife rang the office and was told the highest bid was not the one we made (obviously not word for word but you know what I mean).
Second fact is we didn't receive a courtesy call to say owners were contemplating going sale agreed. I explicitly asked EA to keep me in the loop.
Another EA I've been dealing with is very transparent and professional.
Make of the facts above what you will but at best it's annoying.

Seth Brundle

So you were outbid and the vendors went sale agreed?
Apart from the EA not being courteous (seemingly a common trait), there is no issue here as I see it.

davo10

jos_kel wrote: »

What I can say for certain is the facts.
We raised the bid once, then twice over the space of a week, my wife rang the office and was told the highest bid was not the one we made (obviously not word for word but you know what I mean).
Second fact is we didn't receive a courtesy call to say owners were contemplating going sale agreed. I explicitly asked EA to keep me in the loop.
Another EA I've been dealing with is very transparent and professional.
Make of the facts above what you will but at best it's annoying.

Unfortunately you only have one side of the story, yours. The "courtesy" call you refer to is just that, a courtesy, not a requirement. The EA may have advised the vendor that the bidder who went sale agreed was a "serious" and reliable bidder, perhaps even a cash bidder whereas you are an unknown quantity who bids below the advertised price even though you were told it would not be accepted. In the end the vendor can sell to whoever they want for whatever reason they want and I wouldn't take what the seller said in reply to your note as gospel, nobody wants to receive a note from a disaffected bidder through their home letterbox and it is easier to blame the EA.

Just move on and put this down to experience. The sale is progressing and you are just making things worse by dwelling on what might have been.

jos_kel

davo10 wrote: »

Unfortunately you only have one side of the story, yours. The "courtesy" call you refer to is just that, a courtesy, not a requirement. The EA may have advised the vendor that the bidder who went sale agreed was a "serious" and reliable bidder, perhaps even a cash bidder whereas you are an unknown quantity who bids below the advertised price even though you were told it would not be accepted. In the end the vendor can sell to whoever they want for whatever reason they want and I wouldn't take what the seller said in reply to your note as gospel, nobody wants to receive a note from a disaffected bidder through their home letterbox and it is easier to blame the EA.

Just move on and put this down to experience. The sale is progressing and you are just making things worse by dwelling on what might have been.

I know. Just really loved the property.
To complicate things further wife likes another property on the market with the same EA. I like the property but it's near the N4 and I mean really near.
Wife is also (touch wood) 1 month pregnant.

davo10

jos_kel wrote: »

I know. Just really loved the property.
To complicate things further wife likes another property on the market with the same EA. I like the property but it's near the N4 and I mean really near.
Wife is also (touch wood) 1 month pregnant.

Another good reason not to burn bridges, stay away from both the seller and the EA. Think of this as a business decision and do not invest emotionally in a property.

In most cases, buying/selling a house is about money, but reliability and type of finance are also important. If you come across as "flakey" (not saying you do) then both seller and EA will be concerned about you pulling out of the deal, also, cash trumps bank finance every time even if the cash offer is a little lower. The EA is not your friend, s(he) is not acting on your behalf, they are acting for the seller with only one agenda, achieve the maximum price. Don't make any allegations or threats, s(he) will just tell the seller you are a messer.

MarkAnthony

davo10 wrote: »

But don't you agree that buyers who place bids/deposits on multiple properties have the same effect as EAs inventing phantom bidders. ie to inflate the price and make it more likely that the buyer has to pay more that s(he) otherwise should/would have?

It is possible that if EAs catch wind of that, they advise the vendor that the bidder has a lot of irons in the fire and it may be wiser to accept a bid from someone focused only on, and commited to this one property.

The buyer who's bid was accepted on the ops property may have seemed a better prospect than the op, s(he) may have been a cash buyer. Maybe the EA felt that the op was a shakier prospect.

If I got a letter from an unhappy underbidder, someone I don't know but who knows where I live through the letter box of my home, I'd be a little unnerved and probably tell them whatever it takes for them to not bother me again.

People have to play the game within the rules set. The rules for buyers are different to the rules for EAs. Perhaps if there was more accountability the law might change and we might move to a fairer system like Scotland where all this is properly regulated. Until then I won;t be changing my position.

On that note, yes a good EA should spot a buyer with multiple offers in. They should then present that to the vendor. I don'y buy for a second there is any sort of paternalistic bollox going on here. It's EAs making their life as easy as they can for themselves.

While I do relais you want to have this discussion with me, and I'm more than happy to oblige, we probably need to do it somewhere On Topic. What happened here was the OP is alleging he put in a higher bid, not that anyone has inflated a price.

There are more than enough legal protection in place for an EA who is a victim of someone attempting a scam in this situation, not limited to an action in defamation.

Qualitymark

MarkAnthony wrote: »

People have to play the game within the rules set. The rules for buyers are different to the rules for

(snip)

There are more than enough legal protection in place for an EA who is a victim of someone attempting a scam in this situation, not limited to an action in defamation.

What legal protection is in place for estate agents, what scams would people attempt (either buyers or estate agents), and how are the rules different for buyers and estate agents?

MarkAnthony

Qualitymark wrote: »

What legal protection is in place for estate agents, what scams would people attempt (either buyers or estate agents), and how are the rules different for buyers and estate agents?

Q1 - Answered above + criminal complaints of fraud or harassment.

Q2 - Dunno, scammers are more inventive than I.

Q3 - EAs are regulated.

davo10

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Q1 - Answered above + criminal complaints of fraud or harassment.

Q2 - Dunno, scammers are more inventive than I.

Q3 - EAs are regulated.

It's not against the law for buyers to make multiple bids/pay deposits on multiple properties but the end result is that the successful bidder ends up paying more as result of those practices. So to claim that the blame lies only with the EA is being disingenuous. Neither is fraud, both are sharp practice.

The EA works for the vendor, given that the vendor wants to receive as much as possible and the buyer wants to pay as little as possible, the EA cannot satisfy both and as they represent the seller, that is where their allegiance lies. When you sell your home, do you want your EA to achieve an offer which is less than the max?

The op isn't alleging that he put in a higher bid, he is alleging that he wasn't given the opportunity to put in a bid higher than what was accepted, there is a difference.

How does defamation legislation come in to this?

MarkAnthony

davo10 wrote: »

It's not against the law for buyers to make multiple bids/pay deposits on multiple properties but the end result is that the successful bidder ends up paying more as result of those practices. So to claim that the blame lies only with the EA is being disingenuous. Neither is fraud, both are sharp practice.

The EA works for the vendor, given that the vendor wants to receive as much as possible and the buyer wants to pay as little as possible, the EA cannot satisfy both and as they represent the seller, that is where their allegiance lies. When you sell your home, do you want your EA to achieve an offer which is less than the max?

Sorry Davo but as I've indicated I'm not willing to continue to have this discussion, off topic, on a number of different threads.

The fraud statement was clearly in answer to a different point than the one you're making above, the point of this thread was that the vendor ended up getting screwed over (granted we have one side of the story) where there was a higher bidder.

I can't see how any of the points you've asked for my comment on are related to the OP so unless you want to bring it back on topic I don't think it's a good idea either of us continue to derail the thread. As such I won't be engaging in any further discussion on the points you raised. As I've said to you on other topics before, I'm delighted to have the discussion on the appropriate thread however.

davo10

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Just bid on that too. Bidding, even putting down booking deposits doesn't hold anyone to anything. While I'm not going to ignite the debate on multiple booking deposits, certainly looking and bidding else where is one sure way to get the current vendors to take it or leave it.

This, making multiple bids on other properties to get the vendors attention and then complaining that EAs are "screwing" the op, both are wrong, both end up with buyers paying more than they should, neither is right. Again, the buyer doesn't know whether he had the highest bid, it could have been a take it or leave it cash offer. I don't go in for bashing professionals just because you don't get the result you want.

MarkAnthony

davo10 wrote: »

This, making multiple bids on other properties to get the vendors attention and then complaining that EAs are "screwing" the op, both are wrong, both end up with buyers paying more than they should, neither is right. Again, the buyer doesn't know whether he had the highest bid, it could have been a take it or leave it cash offer. I don't go in for bashing professionals just because you don't get the result you want.

Thanks for letting us know.

I do go in for bashing specific professionals, in any profession, who on anecdotal evidence deserve a bashing.

You're still missing the glaring point (at least you're meandering back onto topic) that in this case the bid was not put to the vendor. Something which, again anecdotally, seems to happens not infrequently reading some of the threads here.

On this topic, what are you suggesting the issue is with the OP taking the course of action they did?

davo10

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Thanks for letting us know.

I do go in for bashing specific professionals, in any profession, who on anecdotal evidence deserve a bashing.

You're still missing the glaring point (at least you're meandering back onto topic) that in this case the bid was not put to the vendor. Something which, again anecdotally, seems to happens not infrequently reading some of the threads here.

On this topic, what are you suggesting the issue is with the OP taking the course of action they did?

I think from a practical point of view, the op burning bridges with an EA who sells property in the area he wants to buy is counterproductive.

Secondly, it is always up to the vendor what bid is accepted and they can take advice from the EA on which bid is better to accept. The op does not know why the vendor accepted this bid, the obvious possibility is that it could be a cash bid.

I also think it is hypocritical to bash a professional while at the same time advocating sharp practices which effect other bidders.

MarkAnthony

To answer your edit

davo10 wrote: »

The op isn't alleging that he put in a higher bid, he is alleging that he wasn't given the opportunity to put in a bid higher than what was accepted, there is a difference.

My reading of it was he played detective and found out he was actually the highest bid. Perfectly possible I've read it wrong. I still see no issue in letting the vendor know in either scenario.

davo10 wrote: »

How does defamation legislation come in to this?

If a disgruntled potential buyer makes a defamatory statement against an EA the EA has the full protection of a civil claim. This would easily include making statements in relation to bids being made that were not in fact made.

MarkAnthony

davo10 wrote: »

I think from a practical point of view, the op burning bridges with an EA who sells property in the area he wants to buy is counterproductive.

I grant you that to a degree.

davo10 wrote: »

Secondly, it is always up to the vendor what bid is accepted and they can take advice from the EA on which bid is better to accept. The op does not know why the vendor accepted this bid, the obvious possibility is that it could be a cash bid.

We don't disagree here. Ther point being made is the vendor wasn't given the opportunity OR depending on the interpretation of the OP's update the EA could have achieved more for the vendors but chose not to offer that service. Granted the latter is less of an issue but certainly something I as a vendor would want to follow up on given the process of bidding on properties.

davo10 wrote: »

I also think it is hypocritical to bash a professional while at the same time advocating sharp practices which effect other bidders.

Fair enough, personally I think in a system that is need of radical reform one has to simply look after themselves. It's not up to buyers to look at the bigger picture, that falls to the professionals working in that system to push for change.

I understand your opinion differs.

davo10

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I grant you that to a degree.



We don't disagree here. Ther point being made is the vendor wasn't given the opportunity OR depending on the interpretation of the OP's update the EA could have achieved more for the vendors but chose not to offer that service. Granted the latter is less of an issue but certainly something I as a vendor would want to follow up on given the process of bidding on properties.



Fair enough, personally I think in a system that is need of radical reform one has to simply look after themselves. It's not up to buyers to look at the bigger picture, that falls to the professionals working in that system to push for change.

I understand your opinion differs.

We agree. A more open and accountable system should be enacted. All bids should be logged and viewable but all bidders should have finance arranged to back their bid. But at the end of the day, a seller can decide to accept any bid they want, not necessarily the highest.

Buying property is a dirty business as there are a lot of variables and the highest bid isn't always accepted, and agreed sales don't always complete so both bidders and sellers can lose out. But that is the nature of the beast, there is no point in painting yourself into a corner.

athtrasna

Mod note

Mark Anthony and Davo10 please take it to PM. To and fro derails a thread. Also leave the modding to the mods. Thanks

4ensic15

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Doesn't make a lot of sense.

EA acting up over €3000 - an extra c.€30 onto his commission, versus perhaps losing the sale?

it makes a lot of sense. EA wants the maximum possible because he wants to get the neighbours' house to sell. If the neighbour thinks the EA sold too cheaply and undervalued the area he won't use that EA for his own sale. An EA is never thinking about his commission, it is always about his reputation and the next sale!

MarkAnthony

Apologies Davo, my 'you're off topic comments' were indeed backseat modding. Kinda turns out I'd opened the door on it and forgot.

gaius c

4ensic15 wrote: »

it makes a lot of sense. EA wants the maximum possible because he wants to get the neighbours' house to sell. If the neighbour thinks the EA sold too cheaply and undervalued the area he won't use that EA for his own sale. An EA is never thinking about his commission, it is always about his reputation and the next sale!

Very possible there's a reason the agent is excluding you from the process and it could be a multitude of reasons. One has been suggested above. My parents got caught that way years ago.