Is it not normal to do that though?

Is that an asumption, an industry normality or a legal requirement (I dont know)

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?

I bet people selling their houses who end up in wiggy's position would hope so.

Strangely for something you obviously have such a vested interest in you appear to suffer a distinct lack of understanding of buyer psychology. Absolutely no vested interest. I just cant fathom your arguments. Doesnt mean i want to start getting abusive though. Why do you think you are so good at buyer psychology?

Why do you think you are so good at buyer psychology?

Well I appear to be able to imagine what a buyer would think rather better than you do if you reckon those EA terms won't have any effect at all on the chances of the vendor's house selling.

You say that this will effect the purchasers views on wether to buy the house. I can accept that.

But can you accept that an EA has a darn sight more experience of it than you.They may have balanced this off with the fact that it may sort the wheat from the chaff and bring serious people who actually really want the house to the fore. Whilst doing this it also gives them a profit oppertunity whilst also protecting their clients interests by keeping the house on the market.

It may be that their calculations show that by keeping the house on the market they have a higher percentage chance of selling the house rather than losing an already interested customer who may decide to walk.

Either way, it boils down to the house aint sold untill the contracts are exchanged. I would expect the house to be marketed untill that point.

In my (somewhat limited) experience with estate agents, they don't allow further viewings if an offer has been made. They took our details so they could get in touch if the situation changed.

I can't believe that so many vendors actually pay estate agents when I see the work they do. Houses listed on internet sites with streets spelt wrongly, shockingly poor photographs or none at all, employ their own solicitors who don't do the searches they're meant to and try and blame the local authority. Do they realise that vendors actually then chase up the council and are told that in fact their solicitor only sent in the request that day? How hard is it in these days of digital cameras to put a few photos up? There's one who keeps phoning me up and leaving messages telling me that they've got some new properties that maybe I'd be interested after I filled in an enquiry form on their website – wake up, it's the 21st century, I'm quite capable of seeing all their new houses on their website. This week consisted of one house 'new to the market' that had an rival estate agents sale board up in the garden when they took their pictures!

The house that we rent is up for sale at the moment. Had a good laugh at the b*ll*cks the estate agent was spouting as he showed some people round yesterday, showing the 'kitchen extension' (conservatory with door removed from kitchen so against building regs). He needs to learn how to use a measuring tape as well.

In my (somewhat limited) experience with estate agents, they don't allow further viewings if an offer has been made.

Is that a regulation, an asumption or just what the EA you have used/seen has done?

But can you accept that an EA has a darn sight more experience of it than you… Whilst doing this it also gives them a profit oppertunity

Yes – I've very little experience of fleecing people for every last penny I can get. Oops sorry, I mean I have very little experience of exploiting profit opportunities.

There have been a few properties (different estate agents) where I have phoned up to arrange a viewing and have been told that the property is under offer and they are not arranging any more viewings, but they would take my details and be back in touch to see if I was interested if the sale/offer fell through.

It seemed like reasonable behaviour, that should have been the warning sign that it wasn't normal estate agent practice 🙂

Yes – I've very little experience of fleecing people for every last penny I can get. Oops sorry, I mean I have very little experience of exploiting profit opportunities. Thats the kind of comment a yr old makes when they cant think of a sensible answer.

I have absolutely no knowledge of the industry and am happy for someone to state something that actually supports your theories other than just 'having a go'.

If anyone can tell me why the theory of 'not sold untill contracts have exchanged' is wrong and should be reported to the ombudsman or whatever i would be interested. Thats all i am saying. The fact that they have said they WOULD do it if the buyer uses their advisors is more worrying to me tbh

There have been a few properties (different estate agents) where I have phoned up to arrange a viewing and have been told that the property is under offer and they are not arranging any more viewings, but they would take my details and be back in touch to see if I was interested if the sale/offer fell through.

It seemed like reasonable behaviour, that should have been the warning sign that it wasn't normal estate agent practice

So as the vendor i have to wait for the whole process to break down at the last minute before the agent will start remarketing it. I think i would prefer the agent to be proactive whilst things are going through the legal process. By all means let all parties know the score so that everyone is clear, but i see it as acting in the buyers best inerests and not the client/vendours

I have absolutely no knowledge of the industry and am happy for someone to state something that actually supports your theories other than just 'having a go'.

OK, fine in that case I have a little experience of how these things work, so I am a step ahead of you. Yes it is normal to stop actively marketing a house once an offer has been accepted. Hence why the estate agent in question is stepping outside the normal rules.

The fact that they would do something different depending on whether or not they make their commission is a problem whatever it is they're doing or not doing IMHO.

Yes it is normal to stop actively marketing a house once an offer has been accepted. Hence why the estate agent in question is stepping outside the normal rules.

See now in one sentence you go from the phrase NORMAL to RULES. With your limited experience which puts you a step ahead of me, is it just something that some EA do or is it governed by the ombudsman and as such something they have to stick to?

The fact that they would do something different depending on whether or not they make their commission is a problem whatever it is they're doing or not doing IMHO.

But are they actually doing something that acts in the vendors favour rather than against it. Just because your opinion is that making money from something shouldnt effect their actions doesnt make it law

By all means let all parties know the score so that everyone is clear, but i see it as acting in the buyers best inerests and not the client/vendours

Apart from the fact that buyers won't want to spend all the money on searches and all the other silly stuff you have to get done if they know there's a chance all that money will be wasted, so they'll look at a different house instead, where they won't be wasting all that money after putting in an offer.

See now in one sentence you go from the phrase NORMAL to RULES.

<sigh> we're doing English language pedantry now?

No it's not something they're obliged to stick to, but there are reasons it works that way.

Maybe that is balanced of against how much time would be lost by going through the legal process with someone who is so easily put off buying the house in the first place. As i mentioned earlier, they may have experience of it.

I used to be an EA, and I see merit on both the op's and tlh's arguments.

The EA is working for the vendor, and the property ought to be marketed til exchange, but with the honest proviso to any potential viewers that there is a sale arranged. Lets face it, if someone who has no chain, offers £5k more than you, and you are reliant on 5 people below you, then to keep selling to you would be a no brainer.

But again, there is a *huge* conflict of interest in the estate agent managing "your" purchase. If theres a difficulty, and the same solicitors are working for the seller, would you get the best advice? And why should the agent prefer you, with 5 properties in the chain below, using their mortgage service over the aformentioned no chain cashbuyer? That would be massively unethical too.

I suggest you ask for the managers name, discuss whats been said, and say you will be reporting them to the Estate Agents Ombudsman for a complaint. I would also tellthe seller how his house is being marketed unethically.

Regrettably, certain "chains" of agents are like the Halfords of bike sales, you just don't know who they are.

*cough* countrywide is a word that should ring alarm bells. But they are not the only ones.

I actually pretty much refused to get involved, past letting a FA vet the purchaser over the phone, just so I could be assured the buyer was good for it. I was also scrupulous about "chain checking" and used to roast other agents it seemed every day, for not knowing what the chains were doing….

But then I was one of the few, genuinely honest ones. And I have verifiable proof, having sold building plots or dilapidated properties to private purchasers for 2x what a builder would have paid, and lost out on "resale" commissions and "relationship building" with developers. I saw a place in the last recession, I valued it at £100k, every other agent in the village valued it at half that, and we got £105 in the end. A lot of delelopers had wanted that plot, and no agent would value it honestly.

Having said that, if I had sold several 2 beds at 55-58k, (when stamp duty was 60k), and I saw a indentikit 2b estate house, I;d tell people to within £500 what it was worth, adding for double glazing, a decent view, a nice kitchem/bathroom. But I never "over valued" ie telling that person Yeah, we'll get you £65k, wioth a view to getting a board up, a pic in the window, and 16 weeks to work on getting the price down. Thats what target driven big name estate agents do. If it was worth £57, I'd say it how it was, but most people dont appreciate honesty, think your a fool, that their house is "always"worth more.

Frankly, in England, people get the agents they deserve, which are a piss poor bunch of chancers.

but there are reasons it works that way.

Reasons in law? Reasons in EA practice laid down by their governing body or just reasons because they suit the op and buyers

But are they actually doing something that acts in the vendors favour rather than against it.

Though it would seem their convictions are easily changed by greasing their palm.

Are the same solicitors working for the seller? I dont know.

Why is there a conflict of interests if the sellers solicitors are the same co. What happens if this occurs by coincidence rather than through the EA involvement? Does the solicitor have to drop one of their clients? Arent the solicitors governed by rules on ethics etc?

ut are they actually doing something that acts in the vendors favour rather than against it.

Though it would seem their convictions are easily changed by greasing their palm. Yaaay, that i agree with. I would have an issue with them as well but for the opposite reason to the op

Makes my pi$$ boil when this happens.

I would go and have a word directly with the vendors and explain the situation, get the person you have been dealing with for the mortgage to get an agreement in principle from a lender and take this paperwork with you so the vendor can see you are good for the money. Ask the vendor if you were to offer x would they be happy and instruct the agents (who works for the vendor) take it off the market.

If the vendor won't/can't see your side (its going to cost you more to get done what you can get for free/less) and your prepared to do it then walk away and find another property through another agent.

Sorry if this repeats anything already said but its late and i can't be bothered to read the whole thread 🙄

Good luck

Wow… I go to the pub, come back and Hobo is calling me a prick for no particularly good reason… Aren't you classy…?

Thanks everyone else… Think I'll chat with the vendor…

Wow… I go to the pub, come back and Hobo is calling me a prick for no particularly good reason… Aren't you classy…?

I wouldn't worry – he consistently talks bollox at a very high level – maybe even Olympic level 😀 with as much arrogance as he can muster
Since RudeFred went he's upped his game & taken over that particular mantle of insulting anyone that doesn't agree with him

Tells them you are cash buyers.

Dont remember calling anyone other than a time waster a prick so if i did then i apologise. If i didnt then up yours.

Uplink, at what point did i insult anyone for dissagreeing with me? Or maybe just you insulting me for having a different opinion. Either way your opinion of me doesnt matter a jot. I suppse your next move is to threaten me by phone and then i post up that i have been threatened so that the rest of your posse can start a mob retaliation against me. Or maybe your just sat behind a computer screen just like me and having a laugh and trying to fathom what the big deal is

I suppse your next move is to threaten me by phone and then i post up that i have been threatened so that the rest of your posse can start a mob retaliation against me.

🙄

Yeah i had the same thought when you posted.

TheLittlestHobo – Member
I have absolutely no knowledge of the industry

"Internet expert" in "actually got no idea what he's talking about" shocker. 🙂

"Internet expert" in "actually got no idea what he's talking about" shocker.

At what point did i state i knew all about it? I do remember asking for info and asking if information supplied was assumed or fact. That sounds like reasonable responses to me.

Internet user makes useless comment shocker. Oh and if i was that bothered i would ask the wife but tbh i was interested to know if there was any knowledge on here rather than just daily mail opinions. I found one and he said he could see it from both perspectives.

Hmmm forgot about this thread….

FWIW, if I wanted to buy a place and the vendor didn't stop viewings then I'd pull out. I would however commit to getting my survey done ASAP and on my last sale/purchase I exchanged emails with my buyer/seller to keep things moving as quickly as possible. I would expect a good agent to find out as much as possible about the buyer regarding finance and if they're selling talk to my agent about my buyer to be able to reassure my vendor that I am a good buyer. I've bought 3 houses now and never had any problems – even though the last 2 times someone tried to gazump me but the vendors were happy to stay with me at a lower price.

If i didnt then up yours.

I didn't think you could get any classier hobo… Then you did…

commented earlier before all the niceties – just a word of warning once "to speed things up" – i had to quit a rented property and had just got a job that would pay my relocation expenses except i was never at home – i went with the EA's solicitor – 5yrs later wanted to sell and buyers search showed an unpaid local authority charge on property – guy i'd bought off was a bad landlord and environmental department had fixed up property to make it safe and billed him but wasn't paid, to sell had to pay back money to council which luckily i could do

– tracked down the solicitor and lodged complaint with law society and found solicitor had been struck off because of his wheeling and illicit dealing with estate agents – ended ok (just) but had to sue law society for the money and more in costs – use your own solicitor – always