Estate Agents up to their old tricks

[Martin@AS Financial]

Don't see the problem. If the price is too high then take your custom elsewhere.

We seem to live in a bizzarro country where people think that others somehow owe them their services/products at the spec they want, for the price they want.

Its called trade - one isn't obliged to participate.

I think the issue is that estate agents are charging the vendor upto 2.5% to sell their property. The role of the agent is therefore to achieve the maximum offer they can from an applicant. If the agent then goes on to charge the applicant as well, this is a huge conflict of interest as the agent is never going to in a million years represent both parties fairly.

Buying a property in London is expensive enough (3-7% just in stamp duty alone) without the agents doubling their fees.

[sasguru]

Don't see the problem. If the price is too high then take your custom elsewhere.

We seem to live in a bizzarro country where people think that others somehow owe them their services/products at the spec they want, for the price they want.

Its called trade - one isn't obliged to participate.

I can tell a fair bit about your from your posts:
You're in your twenties, renting, single and quite probably a virgin.

[SpontaneousOrder]

I can tell a fair bit about your from your posts:
You're in your twenties, renting, single and quite probably a virgin.

Wrong on all counts.

[SpontaneousOrder]

I think the issue is that estate agents are charging the vendor upto 2.5% to sell their property. The role of the agent is therefore to achieve the maximum offer they can from an applicant. If the agent then goes on to charge the applicant as well, this is a huge conflict of interest as the agent is never going to in a million years represent both parties fairly.

Buying a property in London is expensive enough (3-7% just in stamp duty alone) without the agents doubling their fees.

So do your business where there isn't a conflict of interests. If it's a real problem and there isn't such an outfit around, then there's a gap in the market to be filled.

[sasguru]

Wrong on all counts.

You would say that, though

[SpontaneousOrder]

You would say that, though

Not sure why I would.
I've been a single virgin in my twenties, and I can't see any shame in renting.

[Ticktock]

So do your business where there isn't a conflict of interests. If it's a real problem and there isn't such an outfit around, then there's a gap in the market to be filled.

A slight problem with that... Any agency worth their salt will sign the vendor up to an exclusive agreement.
You can't just say "OK, I won't buy through that agent then" - you have to say "OK, I won't buy that house then".

There is no gap in the market to fill. What you propose is akin to opening a shop with absolutely no stock, but a big sign outside saying "Everything in this shop is free". If agencies are able to say to vendors "We'll give you a lower cost" as they recoup from the buyer, then why would the vendor go with someone else?

[AtW]

I hope it does not happen to good people of Wandsworth.

[vetran]

Wrong on all counts.

he normally is and he projects his own experience a lot but he is in his forties or fifties. most of the rest applies. Strange he didn't mention his council house he got from Granny.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

The EA probably sells this to sellers as "it's great, you don't have to pay us commission" but as mentioned in the article, the seller ends up paying in the end as any buyer willing to take part in this "informal tender" process is obviously going to reduce their offer accordingly.

I know that under the normal system, any offer from a buyer to pay a seller's EA fees in order to secure a lower price doesn't work as a means to avoid stamp duty because the fees would be included in the consideration for the purposes of the stamp duty valuation. I wonder if there's any possibility of this system to be caught too, which would be a double whammy for the buyer.