Can you trust an estate agent?

SATSUMA

Absolute newbie here to buying.

I understand that estate agents have to disclose what bids have been nade on a property...

Whats to stop them from making a figure up to force the buyer to offer more? They obviosuly know what the vendor wants...

advice appreciated

thanks

Interested Observer

They work on behalf of the vendor, not you. I don't think they have to disclose bids.

What stops them making up bids is risking their entire livelihood for a paltry extra amount of commission.

You're going to do your head in double guessing every single bid on any house you're interested in. If you can afford it, if you like the house and you like the area then just bid.

Corruptedmorals

Bid what you are happy to bid and stick to your limit based on your budget and what you think the property is worth. It's not worth getting bogged down about the status or existence of other bidders. Estate agents are audited. That's why all bids must be written down.

Henry Ford III

Corruptedmorals wrote: »

Bid what you are happy to bid and stick to your limit based on your budget and what you think the property is worth. It's not worth getting bogged down about the status or existence of other bidders. Estate agents are audited. That's why all bids must be written down.

Interesting username

I'd trust a hungry Alsation before trusting an EA.

p.s. Audited? The bidding process?

Corruptedmorals

The perils of registering at 14 and robbing it from somewhere!

Yeah I remember reading more than once if they get audited they need to be able to produce all proof and paperwork of bids for any properties.

B.A._Baracus

Don't trust estate agents.
Every house ever always has someone else "very interested" lol. Just the nature of the game.

Interested Observer

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Don't trust estate agents.
Every house ever always has someone else "very interested" lol. Just the nature of the game.

I would agree for a buyer not to particularly trust an EA but it's a big leap from the EA saying there's other interest to the EA making up a bid. A very big leap.

joeysoap

I was thinking of selling 3 years ago. Auctioneer came out look around and said it’s worth €xxx. I knew she was bull****ting but said nothing. That evening a complete stranger knocked my door asking could he have a glass of water. He was quite elderly so I asked him if he was ok and asked him in. Spent the next 5 minutes passing remarks like ‘ is that a Belfast sink’ ‘you have a nice house, is it easy to heat’ etc etc. Said he was feeling better and his wife would be wondering where he was and got up to go, when he got to the front door he asked me would I consider selling and as he was going down the drive said ‘I’ll offer you €xxx for it. Unbelievable. A different auctioneer valued it at €70,000 more a week later, but our problem is there was no suitable alternative available. i wouldn’t trust an auctioneer anymore.

Doop

joeysoap wrote: »

I was thinking of selling 3 years ago. Auctioneer came out look around and said it’s worth €xxx. I knew she was bull****ting but said nothing. That evening a complete stranger knocked my door asking could he have a glass of water. He was quite elderly so I asked him if he was ok and asked him in. Spent the next 5 minutes passing remarks like ‘ is that a Belfast sink’ ‘you have a nice house, is it easy to heat’ etc etc. Said he was feeling better and his wife would be wondering where he was and got up to go, when he got to the front door he asked me would I consider selling and as he was going down the drive said ‘I’ll offer you €xxx for it. Unbelievable. A different auctioneer valued it at €70,000 more a week later, but our problem is there was no suitable alternative available. i wouldn’t trust an auctioneer anymore.

joeysoap

Op asked whether he should trust an auctioneer, different views, long story but I wouldn’t trust them. and the reason why. Auctioneer was clearly working for the gent. Not for me.

B.A._Baracus

Interested Observer wrote: »

I would agree for a buyer not to particularly trust an EA but it's a big leap from the EA saying there's other interest to the EA making up a bid. A very big leap.

When it comes to someone making money off you, you should never trust

Dav010

EAs work for the seller, some hate them when buying, most love them when selling. Few base their dislike on solid evidence, almost always a “feeling” or suspicion of wrongdoing.

Interested Observer

joeysoap wrote: »

I was thinking of selling 3 years ago. Auctioneer came out look around and said it’s worth €xxx. I knew she was bull****ting but said nothing. That evening a complete stranger knocked my door asking could he have a glass of water. He was quite elderly so I asked him if he was ok and asked him in. Spent the next 5 minutes passing remarks like ‘ is that a Belfast sink’ ‘you have a nice house, is it easy to heat’ etc etc. Said he was feeling better and his wife would be wondering where he was and got up to go, when he got to the front door he asked me would I consider selling and as he was going down the drive said ‘I’ll offer you €xxx for it. Unbelievable. A different auctioneer valued it at €70,000 more a week later, but our problem is there was no suitable alternative available. i wouldn’t trust an auctioneer anymore.

That's bizarre. Did you sell the house in the end?

JohnnyChimpo

Assume everything out of an EA's mouth is a lie, up to and including other offers that they have received on a property

jace_da_face

Dav010 wrote: »

EAs work for the seller, some hate them when buying, most love them when selling. Few base their dislike on solid evidence, almost always a “feeling” or suspicion of wrongdoing.

EA's work for themselves. They would close a sale low just to make their target commission at the end of the month, if needs be.

Dav010

jace_da_face wrote: »

EA's work for themselves. They would close a sale low just to make their target commission at the end of the month, if needs be.

How does an EA close a sale?

I can see how that would apply if two bidders were making small bids and the EA advised the seller to request one final bid each, but apart from that I see no practical benefit to closing out the bidding while there are still interested bidders.

Have you proof of this?

ampleforth

JohnnyChimpo wrote: »

Assume everything out of an EA's mouth is a lie, up to and including other offers that they have received on a property

As was written further up, I believe that auctioneers are bound to disclose the latest offer on a property accurately and honestly. You can even call and ask if there are any current bits and those statements are reliable because if the auctioneer would be lying about that the auctioneer would risk his/her license. What the auctioneer however does not need to disclose is the history of the bidding, how fast it does, and how many people are involved in the bidding process. This however can sometimes be guessed while participating in the bidding process (e.g. by how the numbers change and how fast they change).

Any other statements by the auctioneer, however, like how many people appear interested and have viewed the place or even if the price is good and how the value will change (any form of predictions) are their opinion, most likely biased, and simply outside the spectrum of their responsibility. They may use such statements to creating an urgency or any other behaviour in the buyer just like all the other BS marketing that is out there.

For that reason it is probably worth to know some auctioneers a bit better and use your people skills to avoid some of them entirely.

Just my 5 cents...

jace_da_face

Dav010 wrote: »

How does an EA close a sale?

I can see how that would apply if two bidders were making small bids and the EA advised the seller to request one final bid each, but apart from that I see no practical benefit to closing out the bidding while there are still interested bidders.

Have you proof of this?

This was widely reported during the start of the last downturn when properties were not shifting. It was even covered in a primetime investigates.

Graham

Mod Note

JohnnyChimpo please read the forum charter before posting again. Particularly the section that begins "bashing of particular demographics".

joeysoap

Interested Observer wrote: »

That's bizarre. Did you sell the house in the end?

Bizarre indeed. Exact same figure she placed on house.

No, didn’t sell. We (and others) have discovered its almost impossible to trade down. Non of the houses we viewed were suitable. And all required serious work.
Best offer in the end was the health board, (as we have ground floor bedrooms) FWIW they were way above ‘that’ auctioneers valuation. Glad we stayed put.

Dav010

jace_da_face wrote: »

This was widely reported during the start of the last downturn when properties were not shifting. It was even covered in a primetime investigates.

What you are saying is, when properties were not shifting, EAs were anxious to close as soon as possible? I suspect there are many, many thousands of property owners who would gladly have closed as soon as possible.

I do not remember hearing/seeing that at the time you mention, and I sold a lot of property in 07-09 and would have watched the market and reports very closely, surely there is a link to the reports?

jace_da_face

Dav010 wrote: »

What you are saying is, when properties were not shifting, EAs were anxious to close as soon as possible? I suspect there are many, many thousands of property owners who would gladly have closed as soon as possible.

I do not remember hearing/seeing that at the time you mention, and I sold a lot of property in 07-09 and would have watched the market and reports very closely, surely there is a link to the reports?

I am talking about the willfull shifting of properties for less than what they were worth. They undervalued to suit themselves and shorted the sellers.

I refer you to Prime Time Investigates Dec 11 2006. Like I say, this was widely reported.

Dav010

jace_da_face wrote: »

I am talking about the willfull shifting of properties for less than what they were worth. They undervalued to suit themselves and shorted the sellers.

I refer you to Prime Time Investigates Dec 11 2006. Like I say, this was widely reported.

I see a few references to it, I see no report or to say it was endemic in the profession, could you please link to the report.

jace_da_face

I can't find a transcript of that 'Prime Time Investigates' episode but I remember what was covered. I did find an article in the Independent which reviewed the episode and investigations. They reported on examples where house prices were being artificially inflated by fake bidders, collusion between estate agents representing sellers and mortgage providers representing buyers and other such sharp practice, including ..

"The investigation also showed how some estate agents deliberately undersell property for their own advantage, despite their ostensible role on behalf of the seller, while others fail to inform prospective buyers of faults with a home."

Whitehorse

Keep as much communication regarding offers on email . What's said in conversation or over the phone can be denied all day. If they have nothing to hide or fear they will confirm everything with an e-mail. I know people selling who asked that ever offer made to EA was to be forwarded by email. EA not happy at all. They changed EA and the next one had no issue with it.

Graham

Not entirely convinced a report from a news piece 13 years ago is particularly relevant to be honest.

jace_da_face

Graham wrote: »

Not entirely convinced a report from a news piece 13 years ago is particularly relevant to be honest.

Is that because the world is a much better and more honest place now?

pummice

Whitehorse wrote: »

Keep as much communication regarding offers on email . What's said in conversation or over the phone can be denied all day. If they have nothing to hide or fear they will confirm everything with an e-mail. I know people selling who asked that ever offer made to EA was to be forwarded by email. EA not happy at all. They changed EA and the next one had no issue with it.

Absolutely agree with this. Avoid making bids over the phone. There HAS to be a traceable history of bids. Its one of the few things a bidder can do to protect themselves.

Graham

jace_da_face wrote: »

Is that because the world is a much better and more honest place now?

The fact you have to trawl back almost a decade and a half to find something to support your theory speaks volumes.

hgfj

The idea that EA's work for the seller is bull. They work for themselves.

When we were selling our first house and buying our second house about 20 years ago we ended up with two EA's. What happened was we were looking around for a house to buy and came across one we liked. We wanted to put an offer on the house but the EA said he wouldn't accept our offer unless we gave him our house to sell. At that point we hadn't yet put our own house on the market. We agreed to let him sell our house but refused to sign a contract with him. So he became our EA. Then we changed our mind about the house we were thinking of buying. We found another house we liked and put in an offer to buy. This was a different EA but he said the exact same thing as the first. He wouldn't put forward our offer unless we let him be the EA for selling our house. So we told him we were already with another EA but were not contracted to them. If he wanted to sell our house for us then fine but we weren't going to sign any contracts with him either. He agreed to that. So we ended up with two different EA's with different commission fees, both of them at one point threatening to SUE EACH OTHER for malpractice. It was mad.

Soon after we got the second EA the first EA had a buyer for our house. The buyer made an offer that we thought was way less than the house was worth. But the EA was encouraging us to take the offer. The offer was for 93,000. The reason the first EA wanted us to accept the offer at 93,000 was because he just wanted to collect the commission (930) and move on to the next sale. The commission was 1%. We reckoned at the time we could get about 110,000 for the house. That extra 17,000 to us was worth only an extra 170 in commission to the EA and so it wasn't worth the hassle for the amount of time it might take to get the price we wanted. Anyway we turned that offer down against the advice of the EA.

Eventually we ended up in a situation where both EA's had a buyer and the buyers were bidding against each other. The second EA's bidder was up to about 110,000 by then which was the price we were hoping for. The EA advised us to accept that offer which I thought was odd seeing as the bidding was still ongoing. But of course the second EA wanted us to accept that offer because he was afraid the other bidder might outbid his buyer and then he would lose out on all the commission. We had a meeting with both EA's in a pub across the road, both of them glaring at each other. We agreed to do a thing where each bidder makes a final offer and puts it in an envelope and the highest bidder would win. The first EA's bidder offered 116,000 and the second one offered 127,000. And that was the price we got.

The point here is that both EA's were interested only in their commission and not in getting the best price for the house that they could get.

Sunrise_Sunset

I have met many, when buying and selling recently.
From my experiences, some seemed more trustworthy than others. No proof obviously, but that's how I felt.
Some of the lines they feed you, you wouldn't even hear from a car salesman, but that's the name of the game.