Identity of counter bidder

amdublin

1641 wrote: »

But your buyer is quite likely to walk away from the "deal" if and when they discover that "sale agreed" means nothing to you and you are actively trying to gazump them.

A buyer will normally check to see that the property is listed as "Sale Agreed" once they pay the booking deposit. Actively marketing after this is not illegal and may sometimes still happen, but is risky and considered dodgy. Most reputable EAs will avoid nowadays - in an attempt to clean up past public perception. But if a potential buyer insists they are obliged to pass on any bids to the vendor.I reckon they would much prefer for the sale to proceed through once "sale agreed" so that they get paid.

Maybe. Or maybe they'll get those papers signed asap.

1641

amdublin wrote: »

Maybe. Or maybe they'll get those papers signed asap.

The purchaser signing the contracts won't stop a vendor from gazumping if that is their inclination. Which is why they would (in my opinion) be foolish to sign in the situation you describe- in that once the purchasers sign they are committed but the vendors can proceed on their merry way until they sign.

And as likely as not it is the vendor's side that causes any delay in completing the deal, not having all their paperwork in order beforehand, not having engaged with their bank, etc.

Fol20

DONTMATTER wrote: »

It's the world we live in unfortunately. People will try to fleece you for every penny just to make extra profits themselves. Dubious behaviour or low morals doesn't come into the equation with these people. It's all greed.
Can an independent board not be set up? Estate agents have to send details of the sale process and this board checks that everything was done correctly. Would seem fair.

Tbh. If you ever want to succeed in business, it’s a dog eat dog world out there and everyone is out to get each other. If you don’t believe that, I would recommend you stay out of business or go to Japan. The buyer is also trying to “fleece” the seller as they want to get it as cheap as possible.

kaymin

GingerLily wrote: »

Then you don't understand odds or statistics either.

Given the numbers Bob24 has quoted it's reasonable to assume 0 - 20,000 as a range of increases in the final envelope bid. If we choose bid increases rounded to the nearest 100 then there is 200 to choose from. Ideally one would want to bid the minimum over the next highest bid (ie 100). The odds of achieving this is 1 in 200, ie 0.5%.

Are you willing to provide your calculations?

Bob24

kaymin wrote: »

Given the numbers Bob24 has quoted it's reasonable to assume 0 - 20,000 as a range of increases in the final envelope bid. If we choose bid increases rounded to the nearest 100 then there is 200 to choose from. Ideally one would want to bid the minimum over the next highest bid (ie 100). The odds of achieving this is 1 in 200, ie 0.5%.

Indeed.

And even that is based on restrictive assumptions which increase your final probability.

For exemple you are making the assumption that both bidders will go for 100 euros increments. It is a fair one to make as it allows for simple calculations which are easy to explain in a boards post. But with different assumptions on bidding strategies the final probability could be much lower.

Graham

Bob24 wrote: »

Either you haven't read my posts fully or you are voluntarily misrepresenting what I said. Which is:
- of course being a cash buyers makes you more attractive
- in the final bidding stage as laid out by the EA it should have made no difference to be a cash buyer or not, if it did the agent didn't follow the rules they had laid out

I think you're taking "the rules" a little too literally.

The EA takes instructions from the vendor. The vendor is fully entitled to make up "the rules" as they go along as long as no laws are broken.

My guess would be that's exactly what happened in this case.

kaymin

Graham wrote: »

I think you're taking "the rules" a little too literally.

The EA takes instructions from the vendor. The vendor is fully entitled to make up "the rules" as they go along as long as no laws are broken.

My guess would be that's exactly what happened in this case.

Disclosing sealed bids to other bidders is shady business practice at best. If an EA has a reputation for doing this then I know I would not deal with such EAs.

Bob24

Graham wrote: »

I think you're taking "the rules" a little too literally.

The EA takes instructions from the vendor. The vendor is fully entitled to make up "the rules" as they go along as long as no laws are broken.

My guess would be that's exactly what happened in this case.

To make it clear, I am not saying anything illegal happened there. My point is that people shouldn't expect that what a EA says is is accurate, as precisely they can change it and make things up along the way (i.e. the OP shouldn't take the presence of a another bidder as a guarantee that things were done buy the books.

And having said that, as an auctioneer it is very poor from to tell bidders you will be doing things in a certain way and to change the rules you had laid out along the way. It is not illegal but doesn't help with the auctioneer's credibility.

Also if the unanimous defence from EAs for this type of practice is "it is not illegal, what's the problem?", they do deserve their bad reputation (fair enough if the only limit of how they act is the law, as long as they are OK with being seen as legal liars). I actually don't think all EAs act in that way though, but if a good numbers of EAs are only limited in how they act by the law, IMO the law should be more restrictive and force more accountability upon them.

mvl

kaymin wrote: »

Disclosing sealed bids to other bidders is shady business practice at best. If an EA has a reputation for doing this then I know I would not deal with such EAs.

does anyone know where can such practices be reported ?

or does daft.ie have a reviews section ?

Graham

kaymin wrote: »

Disclosing sealed bids to other bidders is shady business practice at best. If an EA has a reputation for doing this then I know I would not deal with such EAs.

I didn't see anything about sealed bids and even if sealed bids had been tabled, it's hard to see any laws being broken if the vendor changed their mind.

Bob24 suggested his bid was bettered by €100, while that does suggest the other bidder was told the highest bid I don't see anything particularly untoward. "You've been outbid, do you want to make another offer" is pretty standard practice.

Graham

Bob24 wrote: »

Also if the unanimous defence from EAs for this type of practice is "it is not illegal, what's the problem?", they do deserve their bad reputation (fair enough if the only limit of how they act is the law, as long as they are OK with being seen as legal liars). I actually don't think all EAs act in that way though, but if a good numbers of EAs are only limited in how they act by the law, IMO the law should be more restrictive and force more accountability upon them.

EAs act upon the instructions from their client.

The long and short of it is there's not a lot you can do if the vendor and or EA don't act within the laws as you think they should be rather than the laws as they stand.

GingerLily

kaymin wrote: »

Given the numbers Bob24 has quoted it's reasonable to assume 0 - 20,000 as a range of increases in the final envelope bid. If we choose bid increases rounded to the nearest 100 then there is 200 to choose from. Ideally one would want to bid the minimum over the next highest bid (ie 100). The odds of achieving this is 1 in 200, ie 0.5%.

Are you willing to provide your calculations?

Why are you giving the range an equal probability? There is a bias in what a bidder will spend on a house, based in previous sales in the area and the maximum likely budget of potential purchasers targeting that area, and many many other reasons.

To say there is zero probability is actually just incorrect.

Bob24

GingerLily wrote: »

To say there is zero probability is actually just incorrect.

Indeed, but since kaymin did not say that we are all good ;-)

1eg0a3xv7b82of

Estate agents need to be tightly regulated. When a property is being sold all interested parties and their offers should be known to each other. EA because of the lack of transparency can Play it how they like.
They can not tell vendors about low bids in fear vendor accepts and the commission is too low.
They will not tell vendors about all bids so their preferred buyer gets the property at a low price In this case the commission is low but they receive a kickback from their preferred buyer.
They can string along buyers by making them bid against themselves
Or worst of all they through other partners but up land and property at low prices especially through probate.
EA are not to be trusted

Fol20

Melissa Gigantic Image wrote: »

Estate agents need to be tightly regulated. When a property is being sold all interested parties and their offers should be known to each other. EA because of the lack of transparency can Play it how they like.
They can not tell vendors about low bids in fear vendor accepts and the commission is too low.
They will not tell vendors about all bids so their preferred buyer gets the property at a low price In this case the commission is low but they receive a kickback from their preferred buyer.
They can string along buyers by making them bid against themselves
Or worst of all they through other partners but up land and property at low prices especially through probate.
EA are not to be trusted

I actually disagree weigh what your saying. The ea is selling the property and shouldn’t have to disclose anything to sellers due to privacy reasons and more importantly. Your not making them money unless you buy the place.

I don’t know where you get the proof that they are selling properties to their friends at discounted price. It’s all assumptions without any proof. These phantom bids are impossible to proove. All you need to do is take a look on property price register and you can see the price.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

my evidence comes from my job where I deal with them out of the 9 I know through work I have seeing 4 with my own eyes do bent practices. Accept or don’t but EA is a bent “profession”

Fol20 wrote: »

I actually disagree weigh what your saying. The ea is selling the property and shouldn’t have to disclose anything to sellers due to privacy reasons and more importantly. Your not making them money unless you buy the place.

I don’t know where you get the proof that they are selling properties to their friends at discounted price. It’s all assumptions without any proof. These phantom bids are impossible to proove. All you need to do is take a look on property price register and you can see the price.