Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
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 - MemberI 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?!
[i]TheLittlestHobo - you are either naive or biased![/i]
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 [b][i]I'm[/i][/b] 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.
[i]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[/i]
What do you mean, pull the property? They cant refuse the sale, they can just refuse to take it off the market
[i]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]
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
[i]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...
[/i]
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
[i]But they'll take it off the market if the vendor agrees to go with their people for the finance[/i] 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.
[i]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 [/i]
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 [i]legal[/i] 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 [b]anybody[/b] 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.
[i]Is it not normal to do that though?[/i]
Is that an asumption, an industry normality or a legal requirement (I dont know)
[i] 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]
I bet people selling their houses who end up in wiggy's position would hope so.
[i]Strangely for something you obviously have such a vested interest in you appear to suffer a distinct lack of understanding of buyer psychology. [/i] 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.
[i]In my (somewhat limited) experience with estate agents, they don't allow further viewings if an offer has been made.[/i]
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 🙂
[i]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. [/i] 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
[i]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
[/i]
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.
[i]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.[/i]
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?
[i]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.[/i]
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.
[i]but there are reasons it works that way. [/i]
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?
[i]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.[/i] 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. 🙂
[i]"Internet expert" in "actually got no idea what he's talking about" shocker. [/i]
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