Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Buying at auction

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Thirsty
    Registered Users Posts: 23 ✭Thirsty


    You're annoyed you didn't get an opportunity to bid on the property.
    Very true. I didn't expend money on the pre-auction work and not have the intent to bid.
    physical auction.
    It was always listed as an online auction.

    From what I know at present, the order of events was

    Interested buyers were advised that the property was withdrawn from the open (online) auction.
    The online auction went ahead, at the date and time previously advised.
    The property is recorded on the auctioneers website as having been sold with 1 bid at the AMV.

    I think it's reasonable to seek an explanation from the auction house; depending on that it may or may not be appropriate to make a complaint.

    I'm still waiting to hear from the auction house.


  • Options
    #33
    Thirsty
    Registered Users Posts: 23 ✭Thirsty


    who would you complain to and for what purpose
    To answer this question; I believe the PSRA handles these matters.


  • Options
    #34
    Vikings
    Registered Users Posts: 2,788 ✭✭✭Vikings


    Thirsty wrote: »
    The online auction went ahead, at the date and time previously advised.
    The property is recorded on the auctioneers website as having been sold with 1 bid at the AMV.

    You're (or anyone elses) intent to bid is fairly irrelevant when the buyers were happy to accept the AMV offer. You had the same opportunity as everyone else to make contact and make an offer prior to the auction - perhaps experienced auction buyers are aware of these things.

    You seem convinced that the auction did take place, when I think it is abundantly clear it didn't. This appears to me to be a very simple and clear process - the auction house recorded 1 bid on their system, the AMV, and closed the auction. What you are seeing is the auction house recording the fact that they were responsible for the sale.

    Depending on how sophisticated the platform is, that may be the only way for a property to be marked as sold by recording the bid, even if it appears like there was an auction to viewers on the front end.


  • Options
    #35
    Thirsty
    Registered Users Posts: 23 ✭Thirsty


    You seem convinced that the auction did take place
    Based on the information that is currently available to me, that is my current conclusion.
    when I think it is abundantly clear it didn't.
    Based on the information that is currently available, I don't believe we can say that.
    that may be the only way for a property to be marked as sold by recording the bid, even if it appears like there was an auction to viewers on the front end.
    It's possible that is the case, though more than a little outdated given modern IT systems. The auction house should be able to explain, I would think.


  • Options
    #36
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Thirsty wrote: »
    Based on the information that is currently available to me, that is my current conclusion.

    What is this 'currently available information'?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Thirsty
    Registered Users Posts: 23 ✭Thirsty


    Graham wrote: »
    What is this 'currently available information'?
    I believe I've posted that already.


  • Options
    #38
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Thirsty wrote: »
    I believe I've posted that already.

    You haven't really, your posts appear to be based around your understanding/interpretation of how the auction company updated their website to reflect this specific transaction.


  • Options
    #39
    Thirsty
    Registered Users Posts: 23 ✭Thirsty


    Graham wrote: »
    You haven't really, your posts appear to be based around your understanding/interpretation of how the auction company updated their website to reflect this specific transaction.
    I have posted as clearly as I can the information that is currently available to me. If you have a specific question, I'll be happy to answer it if I can.


  • Options
    #40
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Thirsty wrote: »
    I have posted as clearly as I can the information that is currently available to me. If you have a specific question, I'll be happy to answer it if I can.

    The point is you can't answer any of the questions necessary to clarify what actually happened as opposed to what you think might have happened.


  • Options
    #41
    Thirsty
    Registered Users Posts: 23 ✭Thirsty


    Graham wrote: »
    The point is you can't answer any of the questions necessary to clarify what actually happened as opposed to what you think might have happened.
    I agree, I don't have the full picture as yet; I have requested that from the auction house.

    My question at the outset was to know if advising interested parties that a lot was withdrawn and yet, it appears, still selling it at auction was normal practice; I've not seen it done before, perhaps others have.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    javaboy
    Registered Users Posts: 15,094 ✭✭✭✭javaboy


    If it did actually go ahead as an actual auction, then only one of the interested bidders must’ve known about it which implies some sort of conspiracy. Occam’s razor suggests an IT system that doesn’t provide a clear way of entering this type of event or if it does, that the auction house entered the sale incorrectly.


Advertisement