We've been looking to buy a house, been at it about 6 months, have lost 2 sales because the sellers:

1) Forgot to mention to her husband that she'd put the house on the market… (and he understandably was a bit miffed when he found out)

2) "Changed their minds" (there are several 4 letter words I use to describe this particular couple who had plenty of opportunity to do so and waited until we had invested a lot of time and effort in pushing the purchase forwards to suit them only to be told they didn't want to move anymore at 10 days notice)

Now we're looking again, have solicitors and mortgage in place from last 2 attempts and are ready to go…

The estate agents we've just started dealing with have said that unless we use their conveyance and mortgage service they won't take the property off the market until effectively the day we exchange contracts… I know there is no protection for us and the agreed sale until that point anyway… But they are doing this to try and force us into spending more money with them otherwise they won't recommend us to the sellers… The house we're trying to buy will be advertised as still for sale during the whole process of us shelling out for solicitors, searches and surveys which makes it all the more likely that we could lose it to someone else coming in with a different offer

Am I being unreasonable thinking they are nuts? Do they actually want to sell any houses? We're honestly considering not buying a house because we don't like the estate agents representing the vendor… Mental…

Outrageous

Tell the vendors that you like the place but wont be bothering unless its off the market
The agent cant unilaterally keep showing people round if the owner wont let them

Do the staff drive Minis?

I would advise the seller of these terms and point out that you were willing to make a good offer on their property but are not willing to do so due to these restrictive conditions. Also point out that many prospective buyers will be put off by the thought that they could lose solicitors fees etc because of an even more greedy and unscupulous estate agent than normal (hard to believe but there you go….)

Sure they don't just mean that they will continue to have it on their marketing literature/website but with the 'Sold – STC' across?

Can't see any advantage for the estate agents really as its at completion they get paid so their is no advantage to getting an offer of say £5k more as, if based on usual percentages, would be only another £50 to £100 for estate agent and potentially another 3 month wait whilst the new buyer completes

They're definitely not talking about it being marked up as Sold STC – they want it to remain on the market and listed as For Sale pretty much until the day we exchange contracts…

All that is unless we pay them £1k for their "Independent Financial Advice" and then also use their in-house solicitor to sort the conveyance… (which is inevitably going to turn out to be twice the price my current colicitor whom i also haooen to trust…) In which case they'll take it off the market properly…

As said mention it to the seller. They are the ones in control and I can't see the estate agaents being able to do what they want unless the clients paying them allow it

the hustler – Member

I would advise the seller of these terms and point out that you were willing to make a good offer on their property but are not willing to do so due to these restrictive conditions. Also point out that many prospective buyers will be put off by the thought that they could lose solicitors fees etc because of an even more greedy and unscupulous estate agent than normal (hard to believe but there you go….)

Indeed

And stick with it.

Yep talk to the vendors as seems the agents are acting for themselves which isn't legal – well if the vendors tell them act a certain way then they have to. The agents just want to make more money for themselves and is of no benefit to the vendors so if you can persuade them you are genuine then hopefully they'll want to keep you happy so as to keep you as a buyer – the still a buyers' market I'm sure.

When I bought my house I made taking it off the market a condition and they even cancelled viewings that were already booked. The seller of the house I bought was a good chap though and also told a pushy would-be gazumper to piss off (literally). This was 3 years ago when prices were getting silly.

On the one hand you talk about the fact that sellers & buyers can pull out at the last minute and on the other hand you complain about the Estate Agent protecting themselves and their customer by insisting the house remains for sale until contracts are exchanged.

Which annoys you more?

I sell for a living and untill someone pays a good chunk of a deposit or the full balance i make it clear that it is still for sale.

The fact that they are pushing you towards their preffered conveyancing and mortgage provider is probably down to two reasons. One is that they will be financially reqarded for it and two, because they have a track record of doing the job properly.

My wife works for a conveyancing solicitors (Not attached to any agents, they have a clientel who buy portfolio's of properties rather than one offs) and some of the stories she tells me about other solicitors makes me laugh.

I dont see the big deal. If you want to use your own providers then go ahead, no issue.

Your post appears quite clear the estate agent appears to have no interest in protecting their clients position they are simply trying to inflate their profit margin.
Your solution should be to put your offer in writing marked "subject to contract" stating that you are willing to make an offer of X subject to surveys and mortgage valuation but this is conditional on the property being taken off the market straight away .Send one copy to the estate agent and another to the vendor.
The estate agents prefered solicitor is one who does things quickly does not ask too many questions and looks to keep the estate agent happy rather than the client . You may need one who will actually protect your interest check title and searches and ensure you get the right advise even if that advise is walk away.

TheLittlestHobo – you are either naive or biased!

Happened to me, I argued with the Estate Agent and he threw me out of his shop.

I went round to the vendor, offered him the full asking price, told him what a **** his EA was being and said my offer was conditional on him taking it off the market.

EA got sacked by the vendor and lost his fee. EA tried to claim off the vendor, but he moved to Spain and told the EA to stick it up his ar5e.

unless we pay them £1k for their "Independent Financial Advice"

That would get me running for the hills right there

What the littlesthobo said.

When selling a house its not sold until the deal is done, unless a substantial deposit is paid with appropriate terms.

Use your own solicitors or accept their terms, simple.

Its also a misconception that your own solicitor acts entirely independantly, they get paid when you buy a house so they will guide you towards a sale, and their fees are not effected greatly by getting you the "best deal".

When selling a house its not sold until the deal is done

Yep but still minimize the chances of being gazumped by not showing to anyone else which many vendors will do. I'd have to be pretty keen on a place to let viewings continue.

Its also a misconception that your own solicitor acts entirely independantly…

Well it's not really a misconception just that like anyone they'd like your business. It's surprisingly common how many people don't realise that the estate agent is acting for the vendor – I've heard about people making an offer and at the same time saying they could go higher if needed – what's the agent going to say about that?!

TheLittlestHobo – you are either naive or biased!

Why is that?

I really dont see the 'Evil' angle when it comes to estate agents

You offer
They accept
Estate agent recommends their own providers
You refuse
You sign contracts
Buy House

At any point if someone comes in and offers a higher amount (Gazump) or either buyer or seller gets cold feet and pulls out you have absolutely no extra protection than in any other preferred situation.

Maybe you are making the house buying process more stressfull than it needs to be.

Also, those recommending going behind peoples backs (The estate agent) just remind me of how untrustworthy the british public are and what goes around comes around. The vendor has paid the estate agent to carry out a service for them. It is not your place to tell them what their best practice is. It is up to the vendor to choose the best one that suits them.

I'd say commission if trying to force – even if recommended commission is likely to be involved

The fact that they are pushing you towards their preffered conveyancing and mortgage provider is probably down to two reasons. One is that they will be financially reqarded for it and two, because they have a track record of doing the job properly.

I'm selling and just had my buyer pull out at contact signing stage –
asking for further 10% OFF (Guzundering try on).

Next time I will ask for a 0.5% holding deposit,at least it will tie a serious buyer into the deal or cover my losses.

Make the seller aware of your offer in writing and their agents practice.

Nothing suprises me anymore with this game – good luck

At any point if someone comes in and offers a higher amount (Gazump) or either buyer or seller gets cold feet and pulls out you have absolutely no extra protection than in any other preferred situation.

Yes, but the estate agents are quite prepared to pull the property if the buyer uses their services
Whereas they won't pull it if the buyer uses his own people

How is that acting in the vendors best interest?

The vendor has paid the estate agent to carry out a service for them.

Yes, sell their house. I doubt the vendor is particularly interested in the estate agents lining their pockets by blackmailing buyers.

Ahhh… To live in Scotland, where this doesn't happen !

They'll be on a 'kickback' of at least £250.00 from the conveyancer and similar again from the mortgage broker. Both of whom will no doubt be on a commission.

Advise the Property Ombudsman Of their practice. See what they make to it – Not strictly illegal, but certainly bad practice.

Maybe you are making the house buying process more stressfull than it needs to be.

You've read what I wrote and you think that I'm the one making it more stressful?

Hmmm…

They've basically said that if I pay them a grand for advice I can get for free, accept higher conveyance costs and go for a mortgage that they will recommend (which i know can't be as good as my current deal) then they'll take the house off the market if the vendor accepts the offer…

Whereas…

If I don't pay them a grand, don't pay twice the conveyance costs, and use my current exceptionally good mortgage deal, I will have to pay for all my searches and surveys and conveyance costs, and in the meantime they'll still be advertising the house as for sale…

That sounds like a Great Deal for me…

Name and shame the estate agents.

I'm getting pee'd off just trying to get valuations…the last agent insisted on me saying what I wanted to get for the house, lo and behold, the letter comes round saying we value the house at what I wanted to sell for.

Now a few years back it wouldn't matter, but if they fob me off with a higher price, I pay for a HIP and then after a few weeks the agents tell me I need to reduce the house by £5k, I then can't afford to sell it. So I lose money on the HIP, and probably get tied in to said agent for 6 months, preventing me from going with another agent if the prices rise a bit.

Seriously, just go direct to the seller & outline what you've said in your last post. If they don't understand & instruct the agents to be sensible about it, they're potty. That is, unless you're coming in with a v. low offer, in which case I can understand if they themselves might want it to stay on the market.

Ahhh… To live in Scotland, where this doesn't happen !

🙄

Give us a break. Legally binding sealed bids over the "asking price" in a rising market? Hmmm…

It is a better system, but it has its own flaws.

Yes, but the estate agents are quite prepared to pull the property if the buyer uses their services
Whereas they won't pull it if the buyer uses his own people

What do you mean, pull the property? They cant refuse the sale, they can just refuse to take it off the market

Hmmm…

They've basically said that if I pay them a grand for advice I can get for free, accept higher conveyance costs and go for a mortgage that they will recommend (which i know can't be as good as my current deal) then they'll take the house off the market if the vendor accepts the offer…

I didnt say i agreed with it. I wouldnt do it either. But i wouldnt get stressd about it as its a fact of life, a deal isnt done untill its signed or paid for

Whereas…

If I don't pay them a grand, don't pay twice the conveyance costs, and use my current exceptionally good mortgage deal, I will have to pay for all my searches and surveys and conveyance costs, and in the meantime they'll still be advertising the house as for sale…

Read wiggy's post and see it from the other side of the fence.

What do you mean, pull the property? They cant refuse the sale, they can just refuse to take it off the market

But they'll take it off the market if the vendor agrees to go with their people for the finance

Now they can't have it both ways it either is or isn't in the vendors interest to keep marketing the house, it doesn't [shouldn't] change depending on who the vendor uses for his mortgage/conveyancing

But they'll take it off the market if the vendor agrees to go with their people for the finance That may be because they have more chance of getting more profit from th deal which in turn makes the 'risk' more worthwhile. Isnt that the basics of business? Someone offers you something with a guarentee so you give them a rate (Ie a secured loan), then someone offers you something with no guarentee so you give them a higher rate (Ie an unsecured loan). Its basics. If the reward is higher the company is more willing to play ball.

Now they can't have it both ways it either is or isn't in the vendors interest to keep marketing the house, it doesn't [shouldn't] change depending on who the vendor uses for his mortgage/conveyancing

Why, is that uplinks unwritten law?

As i explained before and wiggy pointed out, just because the op may be a milionaire with 1000's of houses and says he wants to buy the house. He may be a prick who changes his mind at the last minute and cant be trusted. The fact that the Estate agent is making more out of him because he has promised to use their financial and legal service makes him more attractive and worth a bit more risk. The fact that he doesnt want to means that he is not as attractive and therefore they would like to keep the options open untill things are exchanged. Personally i would prefer an agent to work for me who is switched on enough to look after their interests enough to see this and keep options open enough that isf i was being let down like wiggy was, they hadnt wasted a few months dealing with a timewaster who is more bothered about being given a choice than the fact that if he goes through the correct process and still uses his own legal and financial advisors it should go through straightforward anyhow.

Is that clear enough?

I think it's a reasonable expectation for the [strike]bottom feeders[/strike] estate agents to work in the interests of their clients or at least not be prepared to disadvantage them for another couple of quid.
I bet they haven't told the seller that they'd do that – but I suppose I wouldn't expect an estate agent to give two figs about anyone else.

Have you not read the last few posts?

Read wiggys post and see that it is in the interests of the vendor to keep his options open untill the contract is signed. Its only in the case that they STOP openly selling the house to other parties that it could be argued they were not acting in the vendors interests.

looks like the EA is acting mainly in their local interest (fees and commission on "services") as suggested above write/email estate agent stating your position and copy to the vendor – if a national/regional chain copy to head office asking if this is their normal policy and with regard to your situation and your preference to proceed with your partners can they intervene, its only of benefit to the vendor to keep the property openly on the market if in balance you can be seen to acting in bad faith

only alternative is ask the guy/gal in the BMW/Mini to go at least 50-50 on the extras commission with you – its an unregulated industry

The fact that the Estate agent is making more out of him because he has promised to use their financial and legal service makes him more attractive and worth a bit more risk.

More attractive to the EA, not to the vendor, so why should the EA treat the sale of the vendor's house differently because of it?

Remind me of when an estate agent became a charity please?

They are working on behalf of the vendor and their own interests. Its a balance. IMO they have it right and are looking after the vendors interests whilst also protecting their money making oppertunities. Or should they all be struggling to make money because they do loads of work but never get a sale because people keep going behind their backs. A bit like the bikers who go to a lbs and try gear out then go and buy off the net elsewhere. Everyone is in business to offer a service and make money whilst doing it. If you begrudge the money then you find someone who will do it cheaper. Eventually you will find that those do it cheaper are the ones who are here today, gone tomorrow.

protecting money making opportunities is an interesting phrase

i'll ignore the bike analogies as being a bit too condescending

give me another legal example of a contract that depends on buying additional services that are not in your interest, and not in the interest of the party that you are acting on behalf of please

How are they not also acting in the interests of the vendor? They are accepting the sale YES/NO? They have marketed the property correctly up to this point YES/NO? They have not changed their charging of the vendor at any point YES/NO?

All they have done is state that unless the buyer chooses to use the EA preferred Financial and legal advisors they wont be marking it up as sold. If you were arguing this the opposite way i could understand. Effectively if i was the vendor i would be cross that they had offered to STOP marketing the house untill everything was 100% signed, sealed and paid for just because they were making extra money from it.

Remind me of when an estate agent became a charity please?

Oh I don't think anybody has the idea that an EA is a charity. Maybe they should stick to what they're contracted to do though.

Or should they all be struggling to make money because they do loads of work but never get a sale because people keep going behind their backs.

Well the only reason anybody's suggesting going behind their backs is precisely because they're busy trying to make money above and beyond what their contract with the vendor entitles them to by blackmailing the buyer. Something I'm sure they didn't explain in great detail to the vendor. If they want to make the legitimate money they're entitled to, maybe they shouldn't try so hard to make all the extras. I'm not convinced it's in the vendor's interests to actively put off buyers.

At what point have they said the purchase cant go ahead if the buyer doesnt use the advisors?

Effectively if i was the vendor i would be cross that they had offered to STOP marketing the house untill everything was 100% signed, sealed and paid for.

Is it not normal to do that though? Or do you keep actively marketing all the houses you sell right up to the point contracts are signed and payments are made? Not even marking it up as SSTC?

Strangely for something you obviously have such a vested interest in you appear to suffer a distinct lack of understanding of buyer psychology.