Identity of counter bidder

evolving_doors

I reckon the EA mistook the bidder as looking for the Sellers name and address.

TheChizler

TheBoyConor wrote: »

GDPR.

Or even our old data protection laws would cover this.

1641

Logo wrote: »

Spoke to friend who made a final bid on a property and it was accepted. During the bidding process the EA agreed to provide name and number of the other person bidding against her. The booking deposit was paid but the EA is not willing to disclose the identity of the other bidder until the contracts have been signed. Is she now entitled to pull out of the purchase and what is common practice in this situation? Thanks

It sounds like your friend hasn't signed the Contracts for Sale yet - she has only paid a booking deposit to the EA - Correct? If so she can pull out and get her deposit back without giving any reason.There is no way any reasonable or reputable EA will give her the identity and contact details of other bidders, and she doesn't need them if she wants to withdraw from the sale.

Fol20

Logo wrote: »

I assume you haven't purchased many properties lately.

You assumed incorrectly. I deal with ea on a regular basis so that I keep up to date with how market performs

Fol20

blue note wrote: »

And as regards telling people not to worry about the price they pay other than do they think the house is worth it - this attitude boils my p1ss altogether. I might feel a place is reasonable value at €450k. But I'm only content paying that if there's someone else content to pay €445 or whatever. I'm certainly not content to be effectively conned into paying it by an unscrupulous vendor or EA.

Also, I think the most common fake bid is other bidders staying in when they don't intend to follow through. People bidding on a few places and worrying about whether to take them after they're the highest bidder, as opposed to actually thinking about whether they're prepared to pay what they're offering.

Well obviously people would like to pay as little as possible but I mean that if the price you are paying is about the going rate for your area, the property is the best you have found for your needs and it seems like a right fit then go ahead with the purchase. Likewise it’s an emotional decision for many as they could be living in it for the rest of their lives and create memories in it so yes if it accept offer feels right, go for it. One mans trash is another mans gold so each to their own.

I have to agree with you on the second point, Iv had several call backs after a failed sale and then their coming back to see if I’m still interested at my highest bid. Depending on market, I might tell them to throw it back on the market to see where the prices settles at. I do think houses closures take too long here compared to other countries and a deposit should mean something so for example once you sign the deposit contract, that money is tied up contingent on survey report and no major issues with deeds. If you just have a change of heart. Tough you loose your deposit.

Sleeper12

I've seen GDPR miss quoted several times on boards.ie but this is an example where the EA can't (by law) give out personal data

Sleeper12

mvl wrote:

i am confused about something here: is it normal for a buyer to pay the deposit before a bidding process completes ? i thought the deposit is only paid by the person that gets the bid ?

Anyone can pay a deposit. Many do but it's only legal & binding when contract is signed. Otherwise the deposit means nothing

1641

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Anyone can pay a deposit. Many do but it's only legal & binding when contract is signed. Otherwise the deposit means nothing

Although fully refundable, it does mean something. Generally the EA will require it to declare the property "sale agreed" and to stop actively marketing it.

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

We submitted our offer and were eventually told it was the lowest one so we moved on. A few weeks later we saw the selling price on the property price register and it was clear we had been taken for a ride: the price was just 100 euros over our offer, for a property going for several hundred thousands and where the bid increments had been 1000 or 2000 euros. No way it could have happened by chance and clearly for whatever reason the EA wanted to sell to the other bidder but wanted first to generate a significantly increased offer from us to submit it to them and get them to pay that price.

I'll give you two legitimate possibilities;


1 you bid a round figure, but your competitor bid the same but added E100

in case somebody bid it round, always a good tactic.
or

2. The competitor bid a couple of thousand more than you, but in the survey or legal exam he found issues to threaten to withdraw and asked for a price reduction. The vendor, not wanting to lose the sale, agreed to the reduction but insisted his bottom line was that he had to give more than your offer. Thus he ended up E100 more than you.

Bob24

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll give you two legitimate possibilities;


1 you bid a round figure, but your competitor bid the same but added E100

in case somebody bid it round, always a good tactic.
or

2. The competitor bid a couple of thousand more than you, but in the survey or legal exam he found issues to threaten to withdraw and asked for a price reduction. The vendor, not wanting to lose the sale, agreed to the reduction but insisted his bottom line was that he had to give more than your offer. Thus he ended up E100 more than you.

I really don’t see how the first one could have happened. We increased our previous bid by almost 15k but purposely didn’t make it a round figure. Keeping in mind that previous bid increments were 1000 or 2000, them being exactly 100 euros over our bid cannot possibly have happened by chance.

And after the EA emailed me to say our bid was the lowest I asked how far off we were and she came back saying she couldn’t give the exact figure but the wining bid was lower than xxxK (a figure meaning the other bid couldn’t have been mor than 2k over ours, which is another hint and tends to invalidate your second possibility as well).

Of course I can’t prove anything, but it all points towards the same direction!

I've also heard another funny story from friends about a different practicing that kind of secret maximum bid system (secret but not transparent and with no way to make sure the agent follows the set rules). We have bought another property since then so I won't have to go through it again anytime soon, but if someone I know was asked to go through this process, I'd tell them to do it only of the agent is willing to do it publicly via sealed envelopes all opened at the same time in front of all the bidders to make sure they don't do funny things in your back - and not to waste their time if the agent refuses.

April 73

Bob24 wrote: »

I really don’t see how the first one could have happened. We increased our previous bid by almost 15k but purposely didn’t make it a round figure (and previous increments were 1000 or 2000). Them being exactly 100 euros over our bid cannot possibly have happened by chance.

And after the EA emailed me to say our bid was the lowest I asked how far off we were and she came back saying she couldn’t give the exact figure but the wining bid was lower than xxxK (a figure meaning the other bid couldn’t have been mor than 2k over ours, which is another hint and tends to invalidate your second possibility as well.

Of course I can’t prove anything, but it all points towards the same direction!

Sounds very fishy.

Bob24

April 73 wrote: »

Sounds very fishy.

Indeed. To me what happened is that the seller was in a rush and couldn't wait for the biding process to end naturally (the agent had told us they were in a rush to sell when we first saw the place and we were in an ongoing bidding war for over 2 weeks after making our first offer), but was favouring the other bidder for what was probably a good reason for them (maybe they were a cash buyer which is good for a seller in a hurry as the sale is quicker - and the price indeed appeared on the PPR within about a month after our last bid was declined). So the agent probably just decided to use that trick to instantly get everyone's max figure and to ask the other bider to outbid ours if they wanted to proceed.

JustLen

Bob24 wrote: »

I really don’t see how the first one could have happened. We increased our previous bid by almost 15k but purposely didn’t make it a round figure. Keeping in mind that previous bid increments were 1000 or 2000, them being exactly 100 euros over our bid cannot possibly have happened by chance.

And after the EA emailed me to say our bid was the lowest I asked how far off we were and she came back saying she couldn’t give the exact figure but the wining bid was lower than xxxK (a figure meaning the other bid couldn’t have been mor than 2k over ours, which is another hint and tends to invalidate your second possibility as well).

Of course I can’t prove anything, but it all points towards the same direction!

I've also heard another funny story from friends about a different practicing that kind of secret maximum bid system (secret but not transparent and with no way to make sure the agent follows the set rules). We have bought another property since then so I won't have to go through it again anytime soon, but if someone I know was asked to go through this process, I'd tell them to do it only of the agent is willing to do it publicly via sealed envelopes all opened at the same time in front of all the bidders to make sure they don't do funny things in your back - and not to waste their time if the agent refuses.

Were you paying with cash or a loan?

Was other bidder paying by cash or a loan?

Did the other bidder give a legal undertaking to close by a certain date?

Did the other bidder make the offer uncoditional?

Did the other bidder give the impression they would be easier to deal with?

Unless you can answer all these questions you are only guessing as to what happened.

You dont know what happened.

If you wanted to offer more you should have offered it.

Bid the maximimum you are happy to pay for the property - if its not enough then be happy in the fact you didnt overpay.


Sick of these threads.

TheChizler

There's nothing stopping the agent telling a bidder the current highest bid, if it fit their strategy to get a higher price maybe it suited them to tell.

davo10

Bob24, if the other bidder bid €1 more than you, then you are the underbidder in a final offer situation. Also, as stated above, sellers often favour cash bids, even if they are less than other financed bids, get over it, the EA always works for the seller, not the buyer.

Bob24

JustLen wrote: »

Were you paying with cash or a loan?

Was other bidder paying by cash or a loan?

Did the other bidder give a legal undertaking to close by a certain date?

Did the other bidder make the offer uncoditional?

Did the other bidder give the impression they would be easier to deal with?

Unless you can answer all these questions you are only guessing as to what happened.

You dont know what happened.

If you wanted to offer more you should have offered it.

Bid the maximimum you are happy to pay for the property - if its not enough then be happy in the fact you didnt overpay.


Sick of these threads.

I don't think you fully read my posts.

JustLen

Bob24 wrote: »

I don't think you fully read my posts.

Were you paying cash?

Bob24

davo10 wrote: »

Bob24, if the other bidder bid €1 more than you, then you are the underbidder in a final offer situation. Also, as stated above, sellers often favour cash bids, even if they are less than other financed bids, get over it.

I am very much over it and fully understand cash bids will be favoured, thank you (as I said in my posts).

What I said is that I strongly suspect the agent didn't follow the rules they had laid out. Nothing more.

Bob24

JustLen wrote: »

Were you paying cash?

I already made clear in a previous post that I suspect the other bider was preferred because they were a cash buyer, so no.

davo10

Bob24 wrote: »

I already made clear in a previous post that I suspect the other bider was preferred because they were a cash buyer, so no.

So what's your issue with the EA? The other bid was higher and possibly cash, both make the other bidder a more appealing bid to a seller? Are we missing something?

JustLen

Bob24 wrote: »

Of course I can’t prove anything, but it all points towards the same direction!

The only things you can prove are

1. You were not the highest bidder
2. You were dependent on finance
3. The other bid was higher

Nothing points towards anything.

snowcat

blue note wrote: »

There's absolutely no way that doesn't happen. The financial motivation for it to happen is minimal - the extra commission on an extra 10k even wouldn't be significant. But if estate agents are promising prices to vendors they want to meet them for their reputations. And it must be incredibly difficult to prove that an offer was made up.

What I expect happens far more often however, is that the vendor or their friend bids on the property. Keep on just outbidding the others and when they pull out you pull out a week later too and offer it to them for their max. Again, I can see why this would happen and can't see why it wouldn't so therefore it must happen.

And as regards telling people not to worry about the price they pay other than do they think the house is worth it - this attitude boils my p1ss altogether. I might feel a place is reasonable value at €450k. But I'm only content paying that if there's someone else content to pay €445 or whatever. I'm certainly not content to be effectively conned into paying it by an unscrupulous vendor or EA.

Also, I think the most common fake bid is other bidders staying in when they don't intend to follow through. People bidding on a few places and worrying about whether to take them after they're the highest bidder, as opposed to actually thinking about whether they're prepared to pay what they're offering.

This is the main reason estate agents should be not used to sell a property. An extra 10k to them is worth 100 euro to them where it is worth 10k to the seller. There is no incentive for them to get a best price..just to secure a sale. When I am selling (my own) houses i want the maximum i can get down to 500 euro bids or lower if possible. When going that low i look for proof of funds.

JustLen

snowcat wrote: »

This is the main reason estate agents should be not used to sell a property. An extra 10k to them is worth 100 euro to them where it is worth 10k to the seller. There is no incentive for them to get a best price..just to secure a sale.

Who is more likely to get the extra 10k? You or the agent?

The agent.

An extra 100 or 200 commission per sale over 10-30 sales per year makes a big difference to most people.

Bob24

davo10 wrote: »

So what's your issue with the EA? The other bid was higher and possibly cash, both make the other bidder a more appealing bid to a seller? Are we missing something?

JustLen wrote: »

The only things you can prove are

1. You were not the highest bidder
2. You were dependent on finance
3. The other bid was higher

Nothing points towards anything.

I've already explained the situation clearly and what my suspicions are given the very low probability of this happening randomly (never said I had proofs or I was sure).

Feel free to disagree with my analysis of the situation.

Your insistence on cash buyers being more attractive only reinforces my point though. Based on the biding rule laid out be the agent being a cash buyer should have had absolutely no relevance in how the winning bid was picked, and you both outlined it is an important criteria (which I agree with and is one ready I don't think the agent told me the full story).

davo10

snowcat wrote: »

This is the main reason estate agents should be not used to sell a property. An extra 10k to them is worth 100 euro to them where it is worth 10k to the seller. There is no incentive for them to get a best price..just to secure a sale.

What? Most EAs charge approx 1% of sale price. For an EA to earn €10k, the house has to sell for €1m (rounding figure excluding vat), in reality not many properties sell for €1m plus so logically, an extra €10k more than pays for the EAs fee so it is well worth using an EA. These days a good many properties sell above asking as a result of the EAs so I really can't see how your statement holds water.

davo10

Bob24 wrote: »

I've explained the situation clearly and what my suspicions are given the very low probability of this happening randomly (never said I had proofs or I was sure).

Feel free to disagree with my analysis of the situation.

Your insistence on cash buyers being more attractive only reinforces my point though. Based on the biding rule laid out be the agent being a cash buyer should have absolutely no relevance in how the winning bid was picked, and you both outlines it is an important criteria.

But it's the seller who accepts the winning bid. It would be naive to think a cash bid has equal appeal when compared to a financed one. The appeal for the seller should be obvious.

Your suspicions, when you yourself accept you offfered less than the selling price and the winning bid was probably cash, are unfounded. Nothing you have posted suggests anything untoward happened.

snowcat

JustLen wrote: »

Who is more likely to get the extra 10k? You or the agent?

The agent.

An extra 100 or 200 commission per sale over 10-30 sales per year makes a big difference to most people.

Me of course. Same with rentals. An EA lately was trying to sell me a property stating properties in the same estate he was renting were getting x amount. Meanwhile my house 4 doors down was let for twice what he was getting. I had a little stifled chuckle.

snowcat

davo10 wrote: »

What? Most EAs charge approx 1% of sale price. For an EA to earn €10k, the house has to sell for €1m (rounding figure excluding vat), in reality not many properties sell for €1m plus so logically, an extra €10k more than pays for the EAs fee so it is well worth using an EA. These days a good many properties sell above asking as a result of the EAs so I really can't see how your statement holds water.

Your maths are pretty poor. You are doing things in reverse. Think about it. An EA does not really care whether he get 1025000 or 1037000 as the difference in his commision is 100 euro. But the difference to the vendor is 12000 euro

davo10

snowcat wrote: »

Me of course. Same with rentals. An EA lately was trying to sell me a property stating properties in the same estate he was renting were getting x amount. Meanwhile my house 4 doors down was let for twice what he was getting. I had a little stifled chuckle.

I've bought and sold a lot of property, I am 100% certain I could not achieve the price an EA does. Yes they are slippery, but I always know they are acting in the best interest of the seller when I buy, and me when I sell.

davo10

snowcat wrote: »

Your maths are pretty poor.

10k isn't 1% of 1m?