Information for estate agents

[DrBunsenHoneydew]

I agree that this sounds like pre-qualifying for the tied mortgage adviser.
Agents are required by law to put your offer to the vendor in writing within twenty four hours unless the vendor has instructed the agent not to contact him about offers below a certain level. Alternatively the agent may be advising you to prove your finances first, otherwise by law he has to state to the vendor that your offer is "reckless" and this is obviously not in your best interests.

[Lootman]

Alternatively the agent may be advising you to prove your finances first, otherwise by law he has to state to the vendor that your offer is "reckless" and this is obviously not in your best interests.

What law is that?

[DrBunsenHoneydew]

The Property Ombudman's Code of Practice - which is mandatory for Estate Agents.
"Reckless" (meaning that the seller is potentially taking an unjustifiable risk) is a jargon term meaning that the EA has not been able to confirm the source of funds from the offering buyer. The EA does not have use that term, but they must say that they have not yet been able to determine the fund source and availability, and they must continue to make reasonable efforts to determine.

[swill453]

The Property Ombudman's Code of Practice - which is mandatory for Estate Agents.
"Reckless" (meaning that the seller is potentially taking an unjustifiable risk) is a jargon term meaning that the EA has not been able to confirm the source of funds from the offering buyer. The EA does not have use that term, but they must say that they have not yet been able to determine the fund source and availability, and they must continue to make reasonable efforts to determine.

What it actually says is:

"10. Financial Evaluation
10a At the time that an offer has been made and is being considered by the seller, you must take reasonable steps to find out from the buyer the source and availability of their funds for buying the property and pass this information to the seller. Such information will include whether the buyer needs to sell a property, requires a mortgage, claims to be a cash buyer (*) or any combination of these. Such relevant information that is available should be included in the memorandum of sale having regard to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998.

10b You must put all offers to your seller client even if the buyer has not been financially qualified at that stage.

10c These reasonable steps must continue after acceptance of the offer until exchange of contracts and must include regular monitoring of the buyer’s progress in achieving the funds required, and reporting such progress to the seller."

https://www.tpos.co.uk/images/documents ... t_2016.pdf

To me the emphasis is more on obligating the EAs to pass on offers (and associated information), rather than opining how "reckless" they might be.

Scott.

[foundone]

Mel, I get the impression that you are a contractor, possibly IT. The key word here is Agent Estate Agent = Recruitment Agent. They are middle men trying to increase their cut from both ends. They don't work for the seller, they don't work for the purchaser, they work for themselves and want to increase their margin by whatever means possible. Repeat business doesn't really come into these transactions so they don't care too much about negative impressions.

[melonfool]

Mel, I get the impression that you are a contractor, possibly IT. The key word here is Agent Estate Agent = Recruitment Agent. They are middle men trying to increase their cut from both ends. They don't work for the seller, they don't work for the purchaser, they work for themselves and want to increase their margin by whatever means possible. Repeat business doesn't really come into these transactions so they don't care too much about negative impressions.

I know

I'm not a contractor (at the moment. I do contract sometimes, but am currently employed - this is why it has been nigh-on impossible to get a mortgage, because my status has changed so frequently) and I am not in IT, I am in HR - though I often seem to work for IT-type companies and currently work for a software product company in Westminster.

I do indeed have to deal with recruitment agents - but the recruitment agents DO have a long term incentive and they do work for 'me' (in my role) and I make darned sure they do and that they know it.

The EA, as you say, has no interest in me. I will obviously sell this house at some point (if, indeed, I ever get to actually BUY it) and I won't use them, but that's no skin off their noses really, they won't even know it has happened.

However, I am amusing myself by compiling my complaints - one to them directly, a report to Trading Standards and a complaint to the ICO. Last night I got an email from the agents' parent company detailing a property that was for sale - I have no dealings with this company, I did not join their mailing list and the mailing had no 'unsubscribe' button, so......that's been added to my complaint.

By the way, I shall move this thread to Legal, two people have suggested it to me, as it has some excellent legal information, mainly from ClitheroKid but also a few others, which will be easier for people to find later if it is over there.

Many thanks
Mel

[brightncheerful]

When I owned rental properties, it was illegal for an estate agent NOT to pass on any offer that they received. I would be surprised if this has changed in the intevening 10 years. ND

As far as I'm aware, it's not illegal…

An estate agent has a duty to his client. If the client requires to be informed of all offers then the agent should/must. In any vent, it is generally prudent to tell the client in case an aggrieved offeror should start claiming some sort of prejudice. I once got a letter from a prospective tenant's solicitor telling me I must be racist because when p/t enquired over the course of some 18 months I'd continued to tell the p/t that the shop that I was dealing with was under offer even thought as the p/t kept on telling me there were no signs of anyone going to occupy the premises. I ignored the letter, the solicitors sent a reminder: i was then obliged to explain the situation to someone whom I as I told the solicitors had no right to know what was actually happening.

[Mike4]

Certainly sounds to me as though you are being deliberately obstructed from making an offer, as were the other viewers.

Does the vendor come across as a faintly guillible elderly lady by any chance? If so, one scam is to take a number of people around to view, conceal any offers from the vendor and tell them 'the market is saying the price is too high'. thenafter a month or two of viewings and no offers, a mate of the EA swoops in with a low offer which IS passed on. Or the EA graciously offers to buy it personally themselves. OR, if the margins are big, the EA sells it on personally, back to back, to one of the genuine offers and pockets a few £k profit in return for their deception.

[melonfool]

Certainly sounds to me as though you are being deliberately obstructed from making an offer, as were the other viewers.

Does the vendor come across as a faintly guillible elderly lady by any chance? If so, one scam is to take a number of people around to view, conceal any offers from the vendor and tell them 'the market is saying the price is too high'. thenafter a month or two of viewings and no offers, a mate of the EA swoops in with a low offer which IS passed on. Or the EA graciously offers to buy it personally themselves. OR, if the margins are big, the EA sells it on personally, back to back, to one of the genuine offers and pockets a few £k profit in return for their deception.

No, 'the' vendor is a couple in their 30's.

The price had been reduced once already in fact.

I think it was all about using their mortgage broker. The EA even told my my mortgage broker was on holiday til 6th March, I called yesterday and was told he was not, he was in the office but was just busy on phone calls.

Mel

[JonE]

Tedious that many employees will, when challenged on their excessive zeal, parrot phrases such as "it's the law" when that's not the truth and the unrequired extra is, at most, merely their company policy. I find it even more bizarre that a vendor has to provide proofs of ID to an EA! As with a buyer, the EA will handle none of the monies during the process and the risk of identity theft (and worse) is even greater.

EA's junior staff in cities are high-churn and not terribly well-paid (somehow the high commission which was supposed to compensate for a low salary never quite materialises) so an easy target for some purposes. Vendor hands over passport, etc. and spotty yoof disappears out the back to 'take a copy for our files'. In some cases vendor has to leave area before property is sold so hands over keys (which can be readily copied if desired). Now what fun could be had with high-quality copies of ID plus proof of address plus easy access to that address which one knows to be unoccupied?

The only ML loophole being plugged is if a vendor doesn't use a solicitor for the sale so the EA has to conduct the checks. Ludicrous! Firstly, if one has money worth laundering then one can afford to buy a solicitor (or perhaps one of the team is qualified as such). Secondly, EAs aren't widely regarded as among the most honourable of professional persons and there's no genuinely professional body involved. It's making fraud easy - by law!

Cheers!

[pochisoldi]

Tedious that many employees will, when challenged on their excessive zeal, parrot phrases such as "it's the law" when that's not the truth and the unrequired extra is, at most, merely their company policy. I find it even more bizarre that a vendor has to provide proofs of ID to an EA! As with a buyer, the EA will handle none of the monies during the process and the risk of identity theft (and worse) is even greater.

Quoting from
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... businesses

Money laundering can take many forms, but in the property sector it often involves:

* buying a property asset using the proceeds of crime and selling it on, giving the criminal an apparently legitimate source of funds

In the OP's case, I think this is the case of a new kid on the block, who's decided to use the MLR as a way of increasing his commission. He's done the MLR training, he's done the cross-selling training, and he either hasn't done the Consumer Protection regs training yet, or doesn't have sufficient mental capacity to take it all on board (Just like when Homer Simpson took a home winemaking course and forgot how to drive...)

[richlist]

The employees boss is probably very pleased with him as his actions show initiative and a genuine willingness to improve the EA turnover. He may even get a promotion or a small raise for his efforts.

After all, there are probably quite a few buyers who would just have agreed to meet the EA mortgage adviser.

Not that I agree that this is the way the EA should operate off course.....

[melonfool]

The 'boss' (who also appears to be a school leaver) won't be quite so pleased when they get my complaint, copied to the CEO of the parent company and enclosing my letters to Trading Standards and the ICO

Hmm....maybe the FCA and the ombudsman too....

Mel

[Mike4]

The 'boss' (who also appears to be a school leaver) won't be quite so pleased when they get my complaint, copied to the CEO of the parent company and enclosing my letters to Trading Standards and the ICO

Hmm....maybe the FCA and the ombudsman too....

Mel

Forgive my cynicism but I expect the CEO will know perfectly well how his staff behave and won't give a rat's aerosol. (Can I say that on here?) (Edit to add: no it appears not!) And I wonder how much effort will be required to prod all those other bodies into action too. Quite a lot I suspect...

[melonfool]

The 'boss' (who also appears to be a school leaver) won't be quite so pleased when they get my complaint, copied to the CEO of the parent company and enclosing my letters to Trading Standards and the ICO

Hmm....maybe the FCA and the ombudsman too....

Mel

Forgive my cynicism but I expect the CEO will know perfectly well how his staff behave and won't give a rat's aerosol. (Can I say that on here?) (Edit to add: no it appears not!) And I wonder how much effort will be required to prod all those other bodies into action too. Quite a lot I suspect...

Well, firstly the CEO of the parent company is a woman, not a man. I doubt she knows her staff behave liek this, it's a masisve public company. Secondly, so what? I am entitled to complain aren't I?

The ICO will be interested in people trying to get all my bank and pay details unnecessarily and will follow up, they are actually very good.

I have less hope for Trading Standards to be fair, they are underfunded. Sad because actually that is probably where the case has most leverage given the links CK posted to the law and the regulations.

I probably can't go to ombudsman until I have 'reached a stalemate' with any complaint (how that could be possible in this sort of situation I have no idea) but I will simply copy them into my complaint I think (the EA has their logo on their webpage). And the FCA I am going to have a look into their remit in this area and see what I think but they regulate mortgages so they should have some interest.

Believe me, it's no effort at all for me, I can be very articulate when I wish to be. I like writing letters.

Mel

[Alaric]

And the FCA I am going to have a look into their remit in this area and see what I think but they regulate mortgages so they should have some interest.

If they have any sense of history, you might hope so. The commission seeking activities of Estate Agents in league with Mortgage advisers helped promote the reckless sale of endowments to pay off interest only mortgages, something the FSA/FCA only caught up with years after the event. The tale of being told that offers would only be put forward if you took out a particular mortgage or met an "adviser" sounds familiar from that era.

[Mike4]

If they have any sense of history, you might hope so. The commission seeking activities of Estate Agents in league with Mortgage advisers helped promote the reckless sale of endowments to pay off interest only mortgages, something the FSA/FCA only caught up with years after the event. The tale of being told that offers would only be put forward if you took out a particular mortgage or met an "adviser" sounds familiar from that era.

I fixed a boiler in central London a few years ago for a bloke who seemed a shockingly ineffectual sort of bod for the type of property he had. Out of curiosity I asked what he did for a living. He told me he was a board member of the FSA. Then it all slotted into place...

Best I don't name him!

[melonfool]

Does anyone fancy an update?

Well, you're getting one anyway!



Briefly - offer accepted 17th Feb. Since then - nada.

Chasing of EA and their solicitor by mine resulted in nothing. Until last week when I had a hissy fit at the EA and offered to contact his CEO. And suddenly it turned out the vendors were on holiday/honeymoon but hadn't told anyone (<insert raised eyebrow>). 7 weeks into a 3m mortgage offer....... EA Manager (after a few scathing emails from me) said he would update me weekly.

By the end of Thu I'd not heard anything and I started looking on RightMove for other properties. I found two that I liked more than the one I had offered on, so I arranged viewings.

Saw them Sat, loved them both (same village, same style house, but both had had the conversion of the garage done that I was intending to do on the one I offered one, but were on for the same price - so.....). Made an offer on the one I liked best on Sunday by email.

Phone call today - can't put my offer forward until I have come in and met their financial advisor who wants to go through all my incomings and outgoings....

Different EA too!

I'm not falling for it this time. I've gone straight for the jugular, told them all the stuff from this thread about how I have provided the details they need and that it is 'reasonable' and that they have to put the offer even if they have not financially qualified me. And I copied their CEO immediately (I found his name and guessed his email address. No bounce!). I will now forward that to my solicitor so he knows what is going on. I have also written a letter to the vendor and my email says I will post that tomorrow afternoon if I have not heard from the EA.

I need this to move quickly so I can tell the previous vendor I am withdrawing. I feel bad enough for doing it without causing them more pain by spending on their solicitor when I am not moving forward.

The whole thing is horrible. And I really need to move, it's horrible still living in this situation apart from anything else.

Thank goodness for the Lemons though, or I wouldn't have known what to say to the new EA.

Mel

[Clitheroekid]

I feel bad enough for doing it without causing them more pain by spending on their solicitor when I am not moving forward.

If it's any consolation they probably won't have wasted any money. The sale documentation prepared by the solicitor is non-specific, and can be used whoever the buyer is. The buyer's details are never normally inserted into the contract until exchange has taken place.

Better luck this time!

[melonfool]

I feel bad enough for doing it without causing them more pain by spending on their solicitor when I am not moving forward.

If it's any consolation they probably won't have wasted any money. The sale documentation prepared by the solicitor is non-specific, and can be used whoever the buyer is. The buyer's details are never normally inserted into the contract until exchange has taken place.

Better luck this time!

Thank you.

If this one goes ahead (obviously if it does not I will stick with the first one, I really like the village and I probably shouldn't alienate everyone there before I even move in) then I am looking forward to the EA asking why I am pulling out. I will say "Please pass the following response to the vendor - Estate Agent incompetence".



Mel