Walthamstow MP Stella Creasy says new evidence shows estate agents taking advantage of booming property market

East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Stella Creasy. File image. Stella Creasy. File image.

Walthamstow MP Stella Creasy has hit out at “double-charging” estate agents.

The shadow consumer minister claims new evidence shows estate agents, including at least one in Walthamstow, are taking advantage of the intense demand for properties by charging up to 2.5 per cent to introduce prospective buyers to properties.

She pointed the finger this week at Douglas Allen estate agents in Hoe Street, Walthamstow, saying their use of the fee, known as sale by informal tender, forces some buyers to offer a lower price in order to recoup the fee.

Douglas Allen admits it does charge the fee, along with many other agents, on a minor percentage of its properties but says it is a standard and legitimate practice.

The business strongly denies the claim that fees are doubled and said sale by informal tender achieves the best price for clients while ensuring transparency for buyers.

Ms Creasy is urging swift action before the practice becomes more widespread.

“This means they have to offer a lower price for a property as they have to cover this cost as well as the purchase price,” Ms Creasy said.

“Consequently sellers could get less money for their property despite also paying for the estate agent’s service.

“The only people who do well out of these kinds of ‘sealed bid’ deals are the agents who get a nice fat fee from both the buyer and the seller.”

A spokeswoman for Arun Estates, Douglas Allen’s parent company, said the approach is welcomed by both buyers and sellers.

“Sale by informal tender is far from a new concept and has traditionally been used in the marketing of land,” Loretta Strong, client liaison director of Arun Estates, said.

“Whilst the majority of properties we market are still by the more traditional private treaty method, I reiterate that our buyers and sellers who are willing to enter into the sale by informal tender process find it straightforward and productive.”

Comments (24)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:21am Thu 13 Feb 14

mdj says...

Surely to take a fee from a prospective purchaser makes any claim of sole agency for the vendor a fraudulent misrepresentation?

You cannot achieve the best result for two parties on the opposite side of a negotiation. An agent is not an arbitrator, or an auctioneer, since the bidding is not open to scrutiny.
Vendors should simply insist that their agent take no fees from inquirers as a condition of the job.
In a seller's market, they can simply take their business elsewhere - or quite easily sell the house themselves, without an agent.
Surely to take a fee from a prospective purchaser makes any claim of sole agency for the vendor a fraudulent misrepresentation? You cannot achieve the best result for two parties on the opposite side of a negotiation. An agent is not an arbitrator, or an auctioneer, since the bidding is not open to scrutiny. Vendors should simply insist that their agent take no fees from inquirers as a condition of the job. In a seller's market, they can simply take their business elsewhere - or quite easily sell the house themselves, without an agent. mdj
  • Score: 7

11:55am Thu 13 Feb 14

Villagecranberry says...

If the main regulated High Street Agencies are doing this imagine the scams going on by the fly by night ones who disappear in thin air like a well known one that suddenly packed up and ran in the High St Leytonstone recently. Everyday, there seems to be people outside asking where their money has gone.
If the main regulated High Street Agencies are doing this imagine the scams going on by the fly by night ones who disappear in thin air like a well known one that suddenly packed up and ran in the High St Leytonstone recently. Everyday, there seems to be people outside asking where their money has gone. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -4

1:43pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Thunderbird4 says...

Middle-men: unable to do a real job and sit on their backsides most of the time, hoping to collect some money. Does that sounds like a definition of unemployment?
Middle-men: unable to do a real job and sit on their backsides most of the time, hoping to collect some money. Does that sounds like a definition of unemployment? Thunderbird4
  • Score: 3

3:38pm Thu 13 Feb 14

loretta.strong says...

It is simply not true that Douglas Allen double up on fees. If sellers choose this method of marketing they do not pay any commission fees to Douglas Allen. This marketing method is fair and completely transparent to buyers and sellers alike and has encouraged more properties onto the market at a time when market forces have created more demand than supply.
It is simply not true that Douglas Allen double up on fees. If sellers choose this method of marketing they do not pay any commission fees to Douglas Allen. This marketing method is fair and completely transparent to buyers and sellers alike and has encouraged more properties onto the market at a time when market forces have created more demand than supply. loretta.strong
  • Score: -10

4:32pm Thu 13 Feb 14

cynicalsue says...

Thunderbird4 wrote:
Middle-men: unable to do a real job and sit on their backsides most of the time, hoping to collect some money. Does that sounds like a definition of unemployment?
I think that is unfair to unemployed people.
[quote][p][bold]Thunderbird4[/bold] wrote: Middle-men: unable to do a real job and sit on their backsides most of the time, hoping to collect some money. Does that sounds like a definition of unemployment?[/p][/quote]I think that is unfair to unemployed people. cynicalsue
  • Score: 0

4:35pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Alan_1976 says...

loretta.strong wrote:
It is simply not true that Douglas Allen double up on fees. If sellers choose this method of marketing they do not pay any commission fees to Douglas Allen. This marketing method is fair and completely transparent to buyers and sellers alike and has encouraged more properties onto the market at a time when market forces have created more demand than supply.
But the sellers do pay a fee to Douglas Allen along with the fees that the buyers have to pay.

So that's two fees.

Not one.

So instead of one fee. There's two. On a single transaction.
[quote][p][bold]loretta.strong[/bold] wrote: It is simply not true that Douglas Allen double up on fees. If sellers choose this method of marketing they do not pay any commission fees to Douglas Allen. This marketing method is fair and completely transparent to buyers and sellers alike and has encouraged more properties onto the market at a time when market forces have created more demand than supply.[/p][/quote]But the sellers do pay a fee to Douglas Allen along with the fees that the buyers have to pay. So that's two fees. Not one. So instead of one fee. There's two. On a single transaction. Alan_1976
  • Score: 12

5:12pm Thu 13 Feb 14

loretta.strong says...

Sellers using this marketing method pay £150 + VAT only which is an administration fee required to set up the Sale by Informal Tender packs. It is wholly misleading to claim that this nominal admin fee constitutes the agent "double charging".
Douglas Allen continue to market numerous properties by Private Treaty thereby ensuring freedom of choice for consumers if Sale by Informal Tender is not the preferred option.
Sellers using this marketing method pay £150 + VAT only which is an administration fee required to set up the Sale by Informal Tender packs. It is wholly misleading to claim that this nominal admin fee constitutes the agent "double charging". Douglas Allen continue to market numerous properties by Private Treaty thereby ensuring freedom of choice for consumers if Sale by Informal Tender is not the preferred option. loretta.strong
  • Score: -15

5:46pm Thu 13 Feb 14

mdj says...

' This marketing method is fair and completely transparent to buyers and sellers alike and has encouraged more properties onto the market '

So charging buyers more money brings more of them into the market?
Hmmm.
How can the vendor have any faith that the agent isn't conducting an under-the-counter 'auction' between buyers for commission money that the vendor will never see?
You cannot be two peoples' agent at once, when they're on opposite sides of the negotiation.
This article is not about the traditional sealed bid form of tender: it's about a sizeable commission based introduction fee. Can you clarify whether you charge the 2.5% fee mentioned in the article or not?

Even on its own, charging £150 for photocopying a standard form plus Land Registry details seems rather steep. Online auction catalogues show comparable paperwork you can print off for nothing.
' This marketing method is fair and completely transparent to buyers and sellers alike and has encouraged more properties onto the market ' So charging buyers more money brings more of them into the market? Hmmm. How can the vendor have any faith that the agent isn't conducting an under-the-counter 'auction' between buyers for commission money that the vendor will never see? You cannot be two peoples' agent at once, when they're on opposite sides of the negotiation. This article is not about the traditional sealed bid form of tender: it's about a sizeable commission based introduction fee. Can you clarify whether you charge the 2.5% fee mentioned in the article or not? Even on its own, charging £150 for photocopying a standard form plus Land Registry details seems rather steep. Online auction catalogues show comparable paperwork you can print off for nothing. mdj
  • Score: 9

5:31pm Sat 15 Feb 14

I'm Alan says...

How did Stella Greasy who was born in Sutton Coldfield. Ever be become MP for Walthamstow!
How did Stella Greasy who was born in Sutton Coldfield. Ever be become MP for Walthamstow! I'm Alan
  • Score: -9

10:44am Mon 17 Feb 14

Alan_1976 says...

I'm Alan wrote:
How did Stella Greasy who was born in Sutton Coldfield. Ever be become MP for Walthamstow!
Presumably in the same fashion that Iain Duncan Smith (born in Edinburgh) became MP for Chingford having first tried his hand unsuccessfully at Bradford....
[quote][p][bold]I'm Alan[/bold] wrote: How did Stella Greasy who was born in Sutton Coldfield. Ever be become MP for Walthamstow![/p][/quote]Presumably in the same fashion that Iain Duncan Smith (born in Edinburgh) became MP for Chingford having first tried his hand unsuccessfully at Bradford.... Alan_1976
  • Score: 11

11:48am Mon 17 Feb 14

mdj says...

Loretta? Is anybody there...?
Loretta? Is anybody there...? mdj
  • Score: 3

12:12pm Mon 17 Feb 14

Alan_1976 says...

mdj wrote:
Loretta? Is anybody there...?
The quote from Douglas Allen on their Twitter Feed
"Douglas Allen ‏@DouglasAllenEA · Feb 10
The seller pays a listing fee as low as £150+VAT, buyer pays an introduction fee of 2% they can calculate into their offer"

I love the wording "as low as".
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: Loretta? Is anybody there...?[/p][/quote]The quote from Douglas Allen on their Twitter Feed "Douglas Allen ‏@DouglasAllenEA · Feb 10 The seller pays a listing fee as low as £150+VAT, buyer pays an introduction fee of 2% they can calculate into their offer" I love the wording "as low as". Alan_1976
  • Score: 6

12:58pm Mon 17 Feb 14

loretta.strong says...

mdj - to clarify, the sentence quoted from my previous post was clear in stating that this marketing method brings more properties onto the market, not more buyers. Buyers are not currently in short supply whereas, due to market forces, properties are.
The execution-only introduction fee a buyer pays does not alter the client relationship; our clients remain our sellers.
Sale by Informal Tender is completely transparent. Buyers cannot bid without first obtaining a tender pack, as it contains the bid form. The tender packs, bid forms and rules relating to the process are in the public domain and made freely available to buyers and sellers alike. We would not tolerate the impropriety you suggest.
The introduction fee Douglas Allen charge is 2% + VAT.
Tender packs do contain some standard forms but also require the production of a full colour property brochure for advertising purposes.
mdj - to clarify, the sentence quoted from my previous post was clear in stating that this marketing method brings more properties onto the market, not more buyers. Buyers are not currently in short supply whereas, due to market forces, properties are. The execution-only introduction fee a buyer pays does not alter the client relationship; our clients remain our sellers. Sale by Informal Tender is completely transparent. Buyers cannot bid without first obtaining a tender pack, as it contains the bid form. The tender packs, bid forms and rules relating to the process are in the public domain and made freely available to buyers and sellers alike. We would not tolerate the impropriety you suggest. The introduction fee Douglas Allen charge is 2% + VAT. Tender packs do contain some standard forms but also require the production of a full colour property brochure for advertising purposes. loretta.strong
  • Score: -9

2:32pm Mon 17 Feb 14

mdj says...

Thanks for getting back, Loretta.
I'm sorry to be a bit slow, but I'm still not clear: the buyers will pay Douglas Allen £150 for the bidding pack AND a 2% fee? Or are you now referring to the normal commission paid by the vendor as an introduction fee? Do you collar 2% regardless of whether the introduction - whoever pays for it - does not lead to a sale? That might be quite a few per cents! - none of them benefiting the vendor. I hope I've misunderstood.

Surely the vendor - your client - will get best price by selling to a purchaser who has not had to factor in this extra cost you're charging him? A cost which will be rolled over into the 25 year loan, gearing up the price of all the properties that are sold by this means?

If the purchasers are paying to be introduced to the client, what are you charging the client to do on their behalf? If the valuing, photographing and display is now being paid for by the purchaser, the vendor presumably deserves a reduction in fee?

The market is tight,as you say. Surely the morally-dubious benefit of any scarcity value should accrue to the vendor, not to the agent, whose task has suddenly become akin to falling off a log?

Do I need to explain the term 'morally-dubious'?
Thanks for getting back, Loretta. I'm sorry to be a bit slow, but I'm still not clear: the buyers will pay Douglas Allen £150 for the bidding pack AND a 2% fee? Or are you now referring to the normal commission paid by the vendor as an introduction fee? Do you collar 2% regardless of whether the introduction - whoever pays for it - does not lead to a sale? That might be quite a few per cents! - none of them benefiting the vendor. I hope I've misunderstood. Surely the vendor - your client - will get best price by selling to a purchaser who has not had to factor in this extra cost you're charging him? A cost which will be rolled over into the 25 year loan, gearing up the price of all the properties that are sold by this means? If the purchasers are paying to be introduced to the client, what are you charging the client to do on their behalf? If the valuing, photographing and display is now being paid for by the purchaser, the vendor presumably deserves a reduction in fee? The market is tight,as you say. Surely the morally-dubious benefit of any scarcity value should accrue to the vendor, not to the agent, whose task has suddenly become akin to falling off a log? Do I need to explain the term 'morally-dubious'? mdj
  • Score: 5

3:08pm Mon 17 Feb 14

loretta.strong says...

Sellers (not buyers) pay £150.00 + VAT admin fee to set up the tender pack. Sellers have nothing further to pay.
Buyers pay a 2% + VAT introduction fee which becomes due only if and when contracts exchange. Unsuccessful buyers pay no fee.
How buyers choose to fund the introduction fee varies from person to person.
Buyers factor the introduction fee in when bidding in the same way as sellers will factor in the absence of a commission fee when deciding whether to accept a bid or not. The net result is no different from a private treaty sale where the buyer pays no introduction fee but a seller may pay a 2% + VAT commission fee.
Sale by Informal Tender has always been a legitimate marketing method but has come into its' own in the current market and is being operated by an increasing number of estate agents.
I will end by saying that the facts speak for themselves. The Arun Estates group (which inlcudes Douglas Allen) is currently achieving an average sale price in excess of 100% of our seller's asking prices on Sale by Informal Tender listings therefore our sellers are delighted with the results.
The advantage for buyers is that there are more properties to choose from and they are not at the mercy of estate agents who operate unfair priority schemes linked to their peripheral services.
Sellers (not buyers) pay £150.00 + VAT admin fee to set up the tender pack. Sellers have nothing further to pay. Buyers pay a 2% + VAT introduction fee which becomes due only if and when contracts exchange. Unsuccessful buyers pay no fee. How buyers choose to fund the introduction fee varies from person to person. Buyers factor the introduction fee in when bidding in the same way as sellers will factor in the absence of a commission fee when deciding whether to accept a bid or not. The net result is no different from a private treaty sale where the buyer pays no introduction fee but a seller may pay a 2% + VAT commission fee. Sale by Informal Tender has always been a legitimate marketing method but has come into its' own in the current market and is being operated by an increasing number of estate agents. I will end by saying that the facts speak for themselves. The Arun Estates group (which inlcudes Douglas Allen) is currently achieving an average sale price in excess of 100% of our seller's asking prices on Sale by Informal Tender listings therefore our sellers are delighted with the results. The advantage for buyers is that there are more properties to choose from and they are not at the mercy of estate agents who operate unfair priority schemes linked to their peripheral services. loretta.strong
  • Score: -8

4:31pm Mon 17 Feb 14

mdj says...

So you ARE taking two 2% fees where previously you would have taken one.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Your statement:'The net result is no different from a private treaty sale where the buyer pays no introduction fee but a seller may pay a 2% + VAT commission fee' therefore has to be the opposite of the truth.

No explanation of 'morally dubious' required, obviously.
So you ARE taking two 2% fees where previously you would have taken one. Thanks for clearing that up. Your statement:'The net result is no different from a private treaty sale where the buyer pays no introduction fee but a seller may pay a 2% + VAT commission fee' therefore has to be the opposite of the truth. No explanation of 'morally dubious' required, obviously. mdj
  • Score: 1

4:41pm Mon 17 Feb 14

loretta.strong says...

No we are not taking two 2% fees! Please read my previous post again carefully.
The 2% + VAT introduction fee for Sale by Informal Tender properties is payable by the buyer only, not the seller.
I cannot make this any clearer.
No we are not taking two 2% fees! Please read my previous post again carefully. The 2% + VAT introduction fee for Sale by Informal Tender properties is payable by the buyer only, not the seller. I cannot make this any clearer. loretta.strong
  • Score: 0

4:52pm Mon 17 Feb 14

Alan_1976 says...

mdj wrote:
So you ARE taking two 2% fees where previously you would have taken one.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Your statement:'The net result is no different from a private treaty sale where the buyer pays no introduction fee but a seller may pay a 2% + VAT commission fee' therefore has to be the opposite of the truth.

No explanation of 'morally dubious' required, obviously.
To be fair MDJ she is saying that the Buyer pays 2% and the seller pays the £150 +VAT only.

So two fees but not both at 2%. But two fees none the less and suddenly an estate agent who should be having to lower their fees given the scarcity of sellers gets the 2% anyway.

The buyer is led into thinking they have got a good deal because it "only" cost them £180. Whereas if they had actually had the Estate Agent compete to sell their house in the traditional manner they would have been able to negotiate a better rate.

So instead of paying 1 - 1.5% for the services of the Estate Agent and keeping all the money they have the Buyer pay them 2% less than they otherwise might have offered.

The only person guaranteed a better return in this scenario is the Estate Agent. Any references to the Seller's asking price is a red herring as who is responsible for advising the Seller on their asking price. Again the Estate Agent.

Oh and of course there is the question of the Stamp Duty no longer being paid on that 2% so we all lose...
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: So you ARE taking two 2% fees where previously you would have taken one. Thanks for clearing that up. Your statement:'The net result is no different from a private treaty sale where the buyer pays no introduction fee but a seller may pay a 2% + VAT commission fee' therefore has to be the opposite of the truth. No explanation of 'morally dubious' required, obviously.[/p][/quote]To be fair MDJ she is saying that the Buyer pays 2% and the seller pays the £150 +VAT only. So two fees but not both at 2%. But two fees none the less and suddenly an estate agent who should be having to lower their fees given the scarcity of sellers gets the 2% anyway. The buyer is led into thinking they have got a good deal because it "only" cost them £180. Whereas if they had actually had the Estate Agent compete to sell their house in the traditional manner they would have been able to negotiate a better rate. So instead of paying 1 - 1.5% for the services of the Estate Agent and keeping all the money they have the Buyer pay them 2% less than they otherwise might have offered. The only person guaranteed a better return in this scenario is the Estate Agent. Any references to the Seller's asking price is a red herring as who is responsible for advising the Seller on their asking price. Again the Estate Agent. Oh and of course there is the question of the Stamp Duty no longer being paid on that 2% so we all lose... Alan_1976
  • Score: 7

6:38pm Mon 17 Feb 14

mdj says...

Whoops! Corrected. Apologies, Loretta.
So at a time when properties are scarce, and easy to sell, the burden of cost gets reversed to the buyer.
Your earlier sentence, 'The net result is no different from a private treaty sale where the buyer pays no introduction fee but a seller may pay a 2% + VAT commission' seemed to contradict that. And they say punctuation doesn't matter!
But my fault for not picking it up later in the text.

Judging by Stella's position, a comment of Alan's, and the absence of clarity in the article, I may not be the only person to get this wrong.

I can see difficulties if you hold that your client is no longer the party paying the fee. What happens if the seller chooses to accept a bid other than the highest, say because they would prefer a family to buy than a landlord? Can you stop them? Can the thwarted highest bidder sue, even though they've spent nothing? Are you their agent?
Whoops! Corrected. Apologies, Loretta. So at a time when properties are scarce, and easy to sell, the burden of cost gets reversed to the buyer. Your earlier sentence, 'The net result is no different from a private treaty sale where the buyer pays no introduction fee but a seller may pay a 2% + VAT commission' seemed to contradict that. And they say punctuation doesn't matter! But my fault for not picking it up later in the text. Judging by Stella's position, a comment of Alan's, and the absence of clarity in the article, I may not be the only person to get this wrong. I can see difficulties if you hold that your client is no longer the party paying the fee. What happens if the seller chooses to accept a bid other than the highest, say because they would prefer a family to buy than a landlord? Can you stop them? Can the thwarted highest bidder sue, even though they've spent nothing? Are you their agent? mdj
  • Score: 3

7:02pm Mon 17 Feb 14

Alan_1976 says...

If it is unacceptable for Easyjet and Ryanair to add extra fees not advertised in the advertised price I wonder do the advertisements for these properties not have the same need to declare this additional fee in the advertised asking price.

Otherwise all advertised prices are not the same and I certainly have never seen any advertised property display a "Fees apply" notice in the adverts. Perhaps some examples of this could be provided?
If it is unacceptable for Easyjet and Ryanair to add extra fees not advertised in the advertised price I wonder do the advertisements for these properties not have the same need to declare this additional fee in the advertised asking price. Otherwise all advertised prices are not the same and I certainly have never seen any advertised property display a "Fees apply" notice in the adverts. Perhaps some examples of this could be provided? Alan_1976
  • Score: 1

7:37pm Mon 17 Feb 14

mdj says...

' I wonder do the advertisements for these properties not have the same need to declare this additional fee in the advertised asking price.'

I take Loretta's point that this should be cost-neutral, since the 2% fee is in the price somewhere; but I'm told that in Scotland, where sealed bids are the norm, they have the effect of pushing up prices quite startlingly, making the agent's fee 2% of a bigger sum.
I seem to recall being told that in Sheffield the price in the agent's window is more like a reserve or starting point, and almost always goes upwards, which is perplexing.
Introducing variety of practices must be reducing clarity in the market, in any case.

At a time when houses are selling themselves it can be seen that the agent's percentage isn't coming down!
Since it's quite easy now to find a house via Streeview and contact the owner direct, this regime must surely be in its last days?
The web has made self-selling so much easier also.
' I wonder do the advertisements for these properties not have the same need to declare this additional fee in the advertised asking price.' I take Loretta's point that this should be cost-neutral, since the 2% fee is in the price somewhere; but I'm told that in Scotland, where sealed bids are the norm, they have the effect of pushing up prices quite startlingly, making the agent's fee 2% of a bigger sum. I seem to recall being told that in Sheffield the price in the agent's window is more like a reserve or starting point, and almost always goes upwards, which is perplexing. Introducing variety of practices must be reducing clarity in the market, in any case. At a time when houses are selling themselves it can be seen that the agent's percentage isn't coming down! Since it's quite easy now to find a house via Streeview and contact the owner direct, this regime must surely be in its last days? The web has made self-selling so much easier also. mdj
  • Score: 2

11:18pm Mon 17 Feb 14

Villagecranberry says...

In a red hot market, when property prices are rising as fast as they are per month and for example 2 bedroom flats on the Warner Estate (were 50k, 12 years ago) are selling for 350k now, the fees involved are an almost insignificance and irrelevant as the buyer will absorb these in capital growth over a few weeks. A guy I know just made a tidy 300k on his house in less than ten years in the Village E17, representing more than he earns per year over the same period. Some very wealthy people in the village if they bought before 2006. Good luck to them.
In a red hot market, when property prices are rising as fast as they are per month and for example 2 bedroom flats on the Warner Estate (were 50k, 12 years ago) are selling for 350k now, the fees involved are an almost insignificance and irrelevant as the buyer will absorb these in capital growth over a few weeks. A guy I know just made a tidy 300k on his house in less than ten years in the Village E17, representing more than he earns per year over the same period. Some very wealthy people in the village if they bought before 2006. Good luck to them. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -4

8:56am Tue 18 Feb 14

loretta.strong says...

The introduction fee is openly declared when clicking through to any of our Sale by Informal Tender properties and specifically stated in the tender packs which are available in branch or from website links.

I am now signing out of this article but thank you for your comments and trust that my responses have assisted in clarifying the process.
The introduction fee is openly declared when clicking through to any of our Sale by Informal Tender properties and specifically stated in the tender packs which are available in branch or from website links. I am now signing out of this article but thank you for your comments and trust that my responses have assisted in clarifying the process. loretta.strong
  • Score: 0

12:12am Tue 25 Feb 14

Sunny1234 says...

By marketing method I assume Loretta means the sale by tender process. A 'method' implies a process, an effort which is over kill from the buyers perspective. A sheet of info on A4, some photos on another piece of A4 (colour brochure) and a block viewing on a Saturday (it's kind of like speed dating), the opening of envelopes...... it all adds up to a two percent fee on the sale of the house paid for by the buyer, thanks for the introduction I'll knock on the door myself next time.

Please show me the research that there are more properties on the market as a resulting benefit of this process because there isn't any. I thought the 'method' was only applied to a few properties, according to you, so why would this have an impact on the market? A significant influx of new properties would cause prices to fall, which is not going to happen. A simple case of supply and demand isn't it? Demand increases, supply remains the same, a shortage occurs and prices rise. If you can drive those prices up further in the process it's highly unlikely those prices will fall again. When you talk about the buyers 'preferred option' of purchasing I think you meant their affordable option, by the way. Freedom of choice sounds very noble though doesn't it?!

I pity estate agents for not being able to use the flamboyant language openly used by those working in the city, where they don't shy away from declaring their desire to make loads of money! Instead they have to use flowery language and a method, which we are assured has been long standing and legal in the hope that this gives some kind of credence to it, like it's vintage, part of our heritage. Tax evasion can be done very legally too you know. It's all very tasteful and above board you know. Now if you'll excuse me this speed date is over.......
By marketing method I assume Loretta means the sale by tender process. A 'method' implies a process, an effort which is over kill from the buyers perspective. A sheet of info on A4, some photos on another piece of A4 (colour brochure) and a block viewing on a Saturday (it's kind of like speed dating), the opening of envelopes...... it all adds up to a two percent fee on the sale of the house paid for by the buyer, thanks for the introduction I'll knock on the door myself next time. Please show me the research that there are more properties on the market as a resulting benefit of this process because there isn't any. I thought the 'method' was only applied to a few properties, according to you, so why would this have an impact on the market? A significant influx of new properties would cause prices to fall, which is not going to happen. A simple case of supply and demand isn't it? Demand increases, supply remains the same, a shortage occurs and prices rise. If you can drive those prices up further in the process it's highly unlikely those prices will fall again. When you talk about the buyers 'preferred option' of purchasing I think you meant their affordable option, by the way. Freedom of choice sounds very noble though doesn't it?! I pity estate agents for not being able to use the flamboyant language openly used by those working in the city, where they don't shy away from declaring their desire to make loads of money! Instead they have to use flowery language and a method, which we are assured has been long standing and legal in the hope that this gives some kind of credence to it, like it's vintage, part of our heritage. Tax evasion can be done very legally too you know. It's all very tasteful and above board you know. Now if you'll excuse me this speed date is over....... Sunny1234
  • Score: 5

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree