Jump Estate Agent

[cmsapms]

A colleague at work has just made an apparently acceptable offer for a house marketed through the estate agents (or as they term themselves property retailers ) Jump.

He's a first time buyer, and told us that the estate agent charged him £100 for what they called "gazumping insurance". He queried this, and was told that they wouldn't pass his offer on to the seller unless he paid.

Is this right? Is this a new thing, along with seller's packs, that billy liar's crowd of numpties has introduced to make house buying/selling even more costly? Or is it, as I suspect, the estate agent being a set of thieving brds?

We've advised him to check with his solicitor/CAB/lender whether this is correct, and to stop the cheque and contact the seller direct. Is there any other advice the PH pool of wisdom can offer?

NB. Jump's website and printed material apparently makes no mention of this charge.

Cheers

Paul

[mutt k]

Estate agents, if they are members of the RICS, have a legal obligation to pass on offers to their clients, even if those offers are below what they know their clients will accept.

I have never heard of this, and I am in the business, admittedly on the commercial side, so it sounds distinctly fishy.

[Coco H]

I thought all offers had to be passed on - so not passing on an offer beacuse you hadn'tpaid £100 seems to contravene this?

[mutt k]

Typically I can't find my copy of it when I need it, but there is something called The Estate Agents Act 1979; I think the whole issue of passing on offers is covered by that, in which case demanding £100 to do what they are legally obliged to do is a big

[Bat21]

Report them to Trading Standards, The Estate Agents Provision of Information Order 1991 and the Estate Agents Act 1979 are the legislation.

[parrot of doom]

Any agent who tried to do that to me would likely lose the custom, because the first thing I would do would be to tell the seller what their agent is up to.

[srebbe64]

Legally, an estate agent has to communicate offers to the vendor. They can not refuse to communicate a bid.

[agent006]

report them to trading standards then approach the seller direct with the offer.

[KITT]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Are you allowed to do this? I thought you needed the buyers permission to do a credit check? After all, if you do too many checks then it can hamper your chances of getting a morgage (for some weird reason I've never quite understood).

[cmsapms]

An update:

Colleague has been to council offices to see trading standards people. Apparently, this 120,000 population town doesn't have any They're in Leeds, 18 miles away. However, he was told by a helpful bod that Jump were treading a thin line. They trade as property retailers rather than estate agents, so aren't bound by NAEA and technically they may not have done anything wrong; morally, of course, they have

Colleague will hopefully be stopping £100 cheque and contacting seller direct to warn him what's going on, and that whatever Jump tell him, the deal is still on.

Meanwhile, helpful council bod says he will get trading standards to pursue it.

NB, colleague had mortgage offer letter from bank so jump didn't do credit check.

Thanks for all the suggestions/advice.

Cheers

Paul

[bga]

srebbe64 said:

Legally, an estate agent has to communicate offers to the vendor. They can not refuse to communicate a bid.

When I brought my flat the cowboy agent did not pass on my (higher - asking price) offer so that her mate would have an advantage.
This wasn't picked up until we went for a second viewing the next day (with a different agent from the same firm). A call to the owner of the firm followed and the girl is no longer employed with them.
The girl tried to wriggle out of it saying that legally they only had to pass on a written offer by and that our offer was in the process of being typed up. She couldn't answer why she decided to pass on the later, lower offer on by phone.

[minimax]

lots of things sound dodgy about this agency, if they are not "estate agents" technically they do not have to comply with the estate agency act 1979, the residential estate agency code of practice or anything else

however, if it can be proved that they are acting effectively as an estate agent then....

my text book said:

The Regulatory Authority is the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) which has wide discretionary powers. In an extreme case it could issue a life-time ban preventing a company, or a named individual, from doing any further estate agency work.

so you might want to do some digging

some notes:

nobody in my office has heard of gazumping insurance and we have a combined total of 78 years experience

it is standard practice for an estate agency to 'substantiate' offers - this means to have a 5 minute chat to ascertain basic financial details, switch my BS detector on full and see if they are bona fide applicants. on no account does this involve a credit score.

any more questions, just ask

[Bat21]

Whatever they may say, they are Estate Agents under the definition in the Estate Agents Act 1979 and all associated Legislation, this has nothing to do with the RICS the NAEA or any other trade association, it is pure and simple the law of the land.
Hang the buggers from the highest tree, or a warning and banning order from the DTI will suffice if you prefer.

[vixpy1]

You might want to edit out the name of the agents, as it breaks PH's naming and shaming rules.

[rpguk]

They do sound like a cheeky bunch.

And the £100 fee I guess goes to them rather then the vendor? Also any idea why it was called gazumping insurance, how was it insuring against gazumping? (i,e is there any money actually going to an underwriter?)

I'd never let an estate agent (sorry 'property retailer' ) know how much I had to 'potentially' spend (because regardless of what you want, they'll have lots of other houses which are perfect and just happen to be around highest level you'll be able to mortgage to)

>> Edited by rpguk on Monday 7th February 12:13

>> Edited by rpguk on Monday 7th February 12:13

[minimax]

rpguk said:

I'd never let an estate agent (sorry 'property retailer' ) know how much I had to 'potentially' spend (because regardless of what you want, they'll have lots of other houses which are perfect and just happen to be around highest level you'll be able to mortgage to)

:redragtoabull:

i'm not even an estate agent but I work in one so hear me out...what if, just maybe, the agents do have a property that is perfect for you? why go in to an estate agents without giving them all the info they require to best match your finances/wants/needs/preferences to their stock? you wouldn't do that to a bathroom showroom would you? are you afraid of being pressured? just politely refuse! if they offer you a house that's more than you want to spend, any estate agent will instantly realise that you aren't interested..they really do have far better things to do!!!

[havoc]

Estate agents have a reputation for being one step down from solicitors on the moral ladder. Add to which, they are AGENTS, i.e. they are acting for their client, the vendor. They owe a buyer nothing - no consideration, no honesty...

So I for one would not give them any more information than I feel is necessary for them to help me. Telling them my financial position is clearly not in my interest.

[minimax]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

all right, ok, fairy muff. I suppose i'm making the mistake of only being able to speak on behalf of my agency...I can assure you chap, that all my staff here would have only provided you with the properties that matched your spec, they do this day in day out with people who know exactly what they want, just like you do I know that othere estate agents are shockingly bad, some in our group are if i'm honest, but I was getting indignant because there is no way IME you would get treated like that here. I suppose I was trying to defend the industry as a whole, and I can't do that really, as you and I both know.. because even estate agents who are good at their job are usually w@nkers

[minimax]

havoc said:

Estate agents have a reputation for being one step down from solicitors on the moral ladder. Add to which, they are AGENTS, i.e. they are acting for their client, the vendor. They owe a buyer nothing - no consideration, no honesty... So I for one would not give them any more information than I feel is necessary for them to help me. Telling them my financial position is clearly not in my interest.

I think you're allowing your experience of bad estate agents to cloud your judgment of good estate agents.

company policy, moral standards, personal pride in doing a good job, these things do exist in estate agency, perhaps you simply haven't found them yet, however I see evidence of it every day

[cotty]

havoc said:

Estate agents have a reputation for being one step down from solicitors on the moral ladder. Add to which, they are AGENTS, i.e. they are acting for their client, the vendor. They owe a buyer nothing - no consideration, no honesty... So I for one would not give them any more information than I feel is necessary for them to help me. Telling them my financial position is clearly not in my interest.

But whats the point of them sending you details of a property outside the area you are looking at and outside the stated budget. Its a waste of their time, your time, paper and postage. Most of the properties I was sent when looking for a place went straight in the bin

In no way does this benefit the vendor