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

Dublin V The rest

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    givyjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 3,287 ✭✭✭givyjoe


    awec wrote: »
    You're still missing the point.

    Bid or don't. Whatever. Ask for proof of funds before bidding, that's great.

    To ring an EA, say you are only a little bit interested, but you're not interested in bidding, you don't want to get into a bidding war, but could you please keep me informed is an absurd approach to take, particularly when you have been told there are other parties who are actually interested.

    Can you imagine how silly the process would become if EAs entertained every time waster who doesn't really know what they want? Can you imagine how frustrating that would be as a bidder?

    "That's great, I'll lodge your bid, and I'll go ring that other guy who said he's not really interested and won't bid but wants to know that you've bid, and then I'll ring the other genuine bidder, and then I'll get back to you."

    Daft.

    "Hello Mr Car Salesman, I don't want to buy this car, but could you ring me if someone else tries to buy it?"

    You need to re-read my posts, as again YOU have missed the point. This agent didn't give a hoot if the poster actually had the funds or not, she didn't ask him to prove he had, hence why its such a bogus, counter intuitive practice. Asking for unqualified bids to weed people out is ludicrously flawed logic.

    Your own 'logic' is bizarre, so she encourages a bid from someone she believes to not really be interested, only to have to go and tell him later he's been outbid?! Quite neatly proves she's obviously just out, however she can, to bump up the price and sure, who cares if it ends up falling through later.

    If you want to bid, show us AIP, then knock yourself out. Not much more the EA can do to qualify bids. It would be far better for all concerned if this was standard, viewings or no viewings.


  • Options
    #33
    givyjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 3,287 ✭✭✭givyjoe


    C14N wrote: »
    I'm a renter who is looking to buy, so no, not a vendor or EA, and I certainly don't have an interest in prices increasing on housing. I never said any bump by any means is in the interest of the seller, I specifically said



    If, a buyer, see a house going for €350k, and want to put in an offer at €350k, but the agent comes back and says they have an offer of €380k, I may well decide to just back out at that point. If they didn't actually have any other offers bigger than mine and it was all made up, now they don't have any buyers at all, which is their loss.

    You seem to assume they were looking for completely hollow, spurious offers. Maybe they were, and they were just a really ineffective EA, but I don't see anything from the original anecdote to assume that's true. They just said they would keep the person in the loop if they made an offer. Given my own experience in dealing with EAs, this is pretty common, but they do also want to see proof of funds at least rather than just some figure you pulled out of your hat. If you aren't going to provide either, then it's a quick way to know you aren't really worth spending time on.
    C14N wrote: »
    I'm not really sure what the offense committed here was. She works for the seller, she wants the price as high as possible for them so she can get a bigger commission. At the end of the day, it's their house, they can "bump" the price up to whatever they want, they don't need offers (real or otherwise) to do it. If they wanted they could say that actually they won't part with the house for less than €300k, but the risk of doing that is they would possibly lose all the prospective buyers and then have to come back to them from a position of weakness at a lower price.

    I don't think its a good situation right now where getting dozens of offers above asking seems to be becoming the norm, but given that it is the norm and houses are often selling quickly, I can see why EAs will try to filter the list of buyers down and aren't going to bother keeping someone up to date on it if they have no idea whether they're even serious about buying or not. If you were selling and had 20 people interested and putting in offers after two days, would you hold yourself to selling at original asking price or would you start seeing who had actual funding and was willing to pay the most? And would you keep reaching out to people who said they were interested but didn't even state what they would pay for it when you have multiple other people lined up with funding and offers?
    Sorry, but that's blatantly untrue, you quite clearly said they can bump the price however the want.. real or not real offers.

    I assume they are looking for spurious offers, because I've had some agents do precisely this when I've called. In one case I stopped bidding and specifically asked, have you qualified ANY of the bids, including mine as we were already way above the asking price - they hadn't.


  • Options
    #34
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,796 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    givyjoe wrote: »
    You need to re-read my posts, as again YOU have missed the point. This agent didn't give a hoot if the poster actually had the funds or not, she didn't ask him to prove he had, hence why its such a bogus, counter intuitive practice. Asking for unqualified bids to weed people out is ludicrously flawed logic.

    Your own 'logic' is bizarre, so she encourages a bid from someone she believes to not really be interested, only to have to go and tell him later he's been outbid?! Quite neatly proves she's obviously just out, however she can, to bump up the price and sure, who cares if it ends up falling through later.

    If you want to bid, show us AIP, then knock yourself out. Not much more the EA can do to qualify bids. It would be far better for all concerned if this was standard, viewings or no viewings.
    Why would she ask him to provide funds?

    He told her he wasn't interested in bidding. She asked him to bid, he said no. If he had said yes, she would likely have asked for proof of funds. EAs don't ask for proof of funds from people with no interest in buying a house.


  • Options
    #35
    average_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 12,851 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    givyjoe wrote: »
    Eh, she asked for an offer from the poster JUST to be kept in the loop. I dont think her job is soliciting false offers to artificially bump up a sell price. Her job is to get the best price sure, but that should not be by such means.




    Surely if you want to be in the loop you would bid for it?


    Otherwise why be in the loop?


  • Options
    #36
    HBC08
    Registered Users Posts: 3,461 ✭✭✭HBC08


    RichardAnd wrote: »
    All businesses seek to achieve the highest margin of profit, and I have no issue with that; far from it.

    However, other businesses manage to make a healthy profit without resorting to to such tactics. The estate agent in question may have achieved a higher price for the property by soliciting bids from individuals such as me, but she also has left me with a less than favourable view of her organisation. I would think twice before doing business with them in future.

    You're coming across as a bit naive.
    The EAs job is to sell the house for the most money they can get for it.
    You're going to have a less than favourable views of every EA,except when they're selling a house on your behalf.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    average_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 12,851 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    awec wrote: »
    Why would she ask him to provide funds?

    He told her he wasn't interested in bidding. She asked him to bid, he said no. If he had said yes, she would likely have asked for proof of funds. EAs don't ask for proof of funds from people with no interest in buying a house.



    EA's don't ask for proof of funds till offer is accepted i thought


  • Options
    #38
    givyjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 3,287 ✭✭✭givyjoe


    average_runner wrote: »
    Surely if you want to be in the loop you would bid for it?


    Otherwise why be in the loop?

    Missing.. the.. point.. of why the OP was irked and didn't bid. Encouraging offers from the poster, without qualifying it, means she is obviously doing the same to others and I'd imagine the OP questioned (just as i would and have had with certain EA's) that the price is being artificially inflated with offers that some (or all) may not be genuine or backed up with an actually capacity to purchase. It's utterly astonishing that so many seem so willing to defend this crap, least of all because it's totally and completely unnecessary. You can easily act in your clients interest, without soliciting bids in this way and its arguably NOT acting in your clients interest actually doing it.


  • Options
    #39
    average_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 12,851 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    givyjoe wrote: »
    Missing.. the.. point.. of why the OP was irked and didn't bid. Encouraging offers from the poster, without qualifying it, means she is obviously doing the same to others and I'd imagine the OP questioned (just as i would and have had with certain EA's) that the price is being artificially inflated with offers that some (or all) may not be genuine or backed up with an actually capacity to purchase. It's utterly astonishing that so many seem so willing to defend this crap, least of all because it's totally and completely unnecessary. You can easily act in your clients interest, without soliciting bids in this way and its arguably NOT acting in your clients interest actually doing it.




    Maybe things has changed, but anytime I made a bid on a house, I never had to show proof of funds till the offer was accepted


  • Options
    #40
    cintec
    Registered Users Posts: 705 ✭✭✭cintec


    average_runner wrote: »
    EA's don't ask for proof of funds till offer is accepted i thought

    They ask for proof of funds to take a bid at least in my experience they requested a copy of my AIP.


  • Options
    #41
    givyjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 3,287 ✭✭✭givyjoe


    HBC08 wrote: »
    You're coming across as a bit naive.
    The EAs job is to sell the house for the most money they can get for it.
    You're going to have a less than favourable views of every EA,except when they're selling a house on your behalf.

    Not to keep batting for the Op here, but that's completely false. There's plenty of EA's doing things the right way, or at least trying to. I've a few that I would definitely use (they've gotten huge amounts over asking for properties ive bid on) that have done things above board and there's others I wouldn't touch with a barge pole, who have engaged in shady bid behaviour. Thankfully most, or at least the majority aren't acting the maggot.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    average_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 12,851 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    cintec wrote: »
    They ask for proof of funds to take a bid at least in my experience they requested a copy of my AIP.






    Maybe its a new thing, but i would of made my bids over the phone when buying!!


  • Options
    #43
    C14N
    Registered Users Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    givyjoe wrote: »
    Sorry, but that's blatantly untrue, you quite clearly said they can bump the price however the want.. real or not real offers.

    I don't know why you aren't managing to understand this. I said they can, and then also specifically said why it's not something that would even benefit them, which is why they don't have much reason to do so.

    It's like if I said I'm completely able and within my rights to go and stick my hand in a boiling pot of water, but doing so would cause severe injury, and you're trying to call me out for thinking that sticking my hand in a pot of boiling water is a great idea.
    givyjoe wrote: »
    I assume they are looking for spurious offers, because I've had some agents do precisely this when I've called. In one case I stopped bidding and specifically asked, have you qualified ANY of the bids, including mine as we were already way above the asking price - they hadn't.

    Right, and (assuming the idea that they deliberately solicited spurious offers is true and not just a case of sales falling through because people bid higher and ended up just not going through with it) like you said, it completely backfired on them. They ended up not selling at a higher price and had to come back to you, at which point you were understandably less interested. It's not in their own self-interest to try and inflate prices beyond what people are actually willing or able to actually pay.

    Every EA I've reached out to has said they would need AIP as a prerequisite for even taking a bid seriously, although even then, that doesn't really suddenly stop the problem. Under current rules where you have to make a bid to even view, you may well bid more than you'd be willing to pay, while still less than your max AIP allows, just to get a look in.


  • Options
    #44
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,796 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    average_runner wrote: »
    Maybe its a new thing, but i would of made my bids over the phone when buying!!

    I think asking for proof at bidding stage became a lot more popular during covid.


  • Options
    #45
    C14N
    Registered Users Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    awec wrote: »
    I think asking for proof at bidding stage became a lot more popular during covid.

    I thought it became a new legal requirement to reduce the number of in-person viewings, but maybe that was just hearsay. In any case, I think it was ineffective. People who want to view just put in offers, even if they're only maybe interested.


  • Options
    #46
    cintec
    Registered Users Posts: 705 ✭✭✭cintec


    C14N wrote: »
    I thought it became a new legal requirement to reduce the number of in-person viewings, but maybe that was just hearsay. In any case, I think it was ineffective. People who want to view just put in offers, even if they're only maybe interested.

    So far for me it has been pretty consistent that estate agents will take my bid over the phone but I have always had to follow it up with an email containing my bid and my AIP.
    The agents using a bidding portal require ID and AIP to allow you to bid on a property, I only used this once but really prefer this system as all bids are public(usernames are hidden)


  • Options
    #47
    C14N
    Registered Users Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    cintec wrote: »
    So far for me it has been pretty consistent that estate agents will take my bid over the phone but I have always had to follow it up with an email containing my bid and my AIP.
    The agents using a bidding portal require ID and AIP to allow you to bid on a property, I only used this once but really prefer this system as all bids are public(usernames are hidden)

    Are you legally obligated to uphold your bid on this platform? As in, lets say you put in a bid of €270k on a place to view, but then either decide its not for you or you actually would only buy it at €260k, are you still in any way on the hook for what you said you'd pay?


  • Options
    #48
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,513 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    C14N wrote: »
    Are you legally obligated to uphold your bid on this platform? As in, lets say you put in a bid of €270k on a place to view, but then either decide its not for you or you actually would only buy it at €260k, are you still in any way on the hook for what you said you'd pay?

    No, that only applies to online auctions. In a standard house sale, you are not committed until contracts are signed.


  • Options
    #49
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    RichardAnd wrote: »
    This is anecdotal.

    I saw a house in rural Wicklow a few weeks ago. It was a very small, though very nice house on just under an acre of land. The asking price was 220k. I called the agent to ask about it, and she told me that the current offer, after 24 hours of being on the market, was 230k. This has climbed to 235 a day or so later, and she told me that there were still many interested parties. I left it at that, but not before she encouraged me to place an offer "just to say in the loop".

    Make of that what you will. For my own part, my opinion of estate agents is getting dangerously close to my opinion of the mainstream media...

    Sounds like she was doing her job.


  • Options
    #50
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'm in Drogheda and the prices are going silly here, too. Areas that would normally do well to get 200k are going for 240k.


  • Options
    #51
    WhiteWalls
    Registered Users Posts: 945 ✭✭✭WhiteWalls


    Interesting piece on the newstalk yesterday

    https://www.newstalk.com/news/normal-people-cant-compete-with-investment-funds-when-buying-a-house-in-ireland-1189384


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    WhiteWalls wrote: »
    Interesting piece on the newstalk yesterday

    https://www.newstalk.com/news/normal-people-cant-compete-with-investment-funds-when-buying-a-house-in-ireland-1189384




    Nothing we didn't already know. If you've been trying to buy a house in 2021, you'll notice there are either no houses available, or anything that is available is selling for massive money in record time.

    I don't mind investors, they have a place in the market, just like everyone else, but they've overstepped that place now and people are rightfully angry. The housing minister's very clear anti-public approach is going to cause big problems, I fear, in the short term future.


  • Options
    #53
    WhiteWalls
    Registered Users Posts: 945 ✭✭✭WhiteWalls


    Varadkar was on this morning saying the govt are looking into it, whatever that means!


  • Options
    #54
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    WhiteWalls wrote: »
    Varadkar was on this morning saying the govt are looking into it, whatever that means!


    Oh, that's that sorted then. Phew. I'll sleep well tonight. :D








    (not having a go at you, whitewalls, more so Leo, just incase you misinterpret my post as an attack on yourself :))


  • Options
    #55
    C14N
    Registered Users Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    Not that I ever really expect radical action from this government, and I worry that whatever solution they do come up with will be a short-sighted quick fix that has negative long-term consequences, but I do think they will at least want to be seen to be doing something about it.


  • Options
    #56
    FromADistance
    Registered Users Posts: 310 ✭✭FromADistance


    WhiteWalls wrote: »
    Varadkar was on this morning saying the govt are looking into it, whatever that means!

    Hilarious. FF/FG have known that this activity has been going on for years & have done SFA.

    Coupled with low interest rates & the lack of solid investment returns, it's hardly surprising that investors are moving on to the next cash cow (buy to rent family homes / HAP) given that it has now come to the point where even new 'starter' homes in Dublin are starting to become out of reach for first time buyers.

    The Government has hoards of land available to address this crisis but continues to fall back on the private sector to address the housing issue as councils are not equipped to build houses at the scale required. People cannot expect private builders to have a social conscious about house building. In addition, the cost of development land has never been adequately addressed since the crash meaning that as the cost of said land rises, overall affordability can never be adequately addressed.

    The whole housing issue is a complete shambles, throwing billions at it will not solve it and as each year passes, reduces people's capacity to invest money back into the real economy.


  • Options
    #57
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users Posts: 5,367 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Oh, that's that sorted then. Phew. I'll sleep well tonight. :D

    (not having a go at you, whitewalls, more so Leo, just incase you misinterpret my post as an attack on yourself :))


    I wonder will Leo do this after he sorts out the people who get up in the morning and keeps his word on not having to pay the high rate of tax if you earn less than 50k.
    To be fair he muyst be busy keeping all those promises, so it might take him a few months to get to this.


  • Options
    #58
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users Posts: 5,367 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    FromADistance wrote: »
    Hilarious. FF/FG have known that this activity has been going on for years & have done SFA.

    Coupled with low interest rates & the lack of solid investment returns, it's hardly surprising that investors are moving on to the next cash cow (buy to rent family homes / HAP) given that it has now come to the point where even new 'starter' homes in Dublin are starting to become out of reach for first time buyers.

    The Government has hoards of land available to address this crisis but continues to fall back on the private sector to address the housing issue as councils are not equipped to build houses at the scale required. People cannot expect private builders to have a social conscious about house building. In addition, the cost of development land has never been adequately addressed since the crash meaning that as the cost of said land rises, overall affordability can never be adequately addressed.

    The whole housing issue is a complete shambles, throwing billions at it will not solve it and as each year passes, reduces people's capacity to invest money back into the real economy.


    Sure an affordable home is said to be nearly half a million euro according to yesterdays news.


  • Options
    #59
    C14N
    Registered Users Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    Sure an affordable home is said to be nearly half a million euro according to yesterdays news.

    It's an odd situation at the moment. By increasing the maximum amount, they will likely push the prices up further. At the same time though, they limit it to new-builds, and good luck finding any new build in DCC or DLR for under €450k.

    Botht the HTB and shared equity are trying to kill two birds with one stone (stimulate building and help first time buyers) and do both very poorly. I don't know why this was ever thought to be a good idea. First time buyers in general should be buying on the cheaper end of the housing market, which rightfully would be older second-hand builds, not fancy new builds with all the bells and whistles. Stimulate building for existing homeowners to trade up to vacate more second-hand homes for them to move into.

    The effect of the policy is just to drive young people away from the city where they would actually be productive, because if you move out to the countryside where its actually possible to avail of the deal, you get a big cash bonus.


  • Options
    #60
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users Posts: 5,367 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    C14N wrote: »
    It's an odd situation at the moment. By increasing the maximum amount, they will likely push the prices up further. At the same time though, they limit it to new-builds, and good luck finding any new build in DCC or DLR for under €450k.

    Botht the HTB and shared equity are trying to kill two birds with one stone (stimulate building and help first time buyers) and do both very poorly. I don't know why this was ever thought to be a good idea. First time buyers in general should be buying on the cheaper end of the housing market, which rightfully would be older second-hand builds, not fancy new builds with all the bells and whistles. Stimulate building for existing homeowners to trade up to vacate more second-hand homes for them to move into.

    The effect of the policy is just to drive young people away from the city where they would actually be productive, because if you move out to the countryside where its actually possible to avail of the deal, you get a big cash bonus.


    And pray that WFH takes off when covid is over.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    C14N wrote: »
    Not that I ever really expect radical action from this government, and I worry that whatever solution they do come up with will be a short-sighted quick fix that has negative long-term consequences, but I do think they will at least want to be seen to be doing something about it.

    This shouldve been fixed as soon as it became clear that there was enough demand in the market again from owner purchasers

    Tax writeoff funds competing not just with the poor sod paying his own way but also the local authorities on top was a situation that should have been nipped in the bud the second it first arose

    If FG had bothered to sort this out in their mid decade dominance theyd have waltzed back into govt

    Sure, they have to keep prices high to recapitalise our crazy system but i dont think that even twice the current supply of new places coming on market would affect price

    That they arent building significant numbers of dedicated social housing for the past ten years is a massive error


Advertisement