Ask an estate agent anything

[22s]

22s said:

Thank you for the kind words... Just trying to show "the other side" and demonstrate we're not all scumbags (though I admit a lot are).

Happy to help with any other questions!

@FrankAbagnale - I received your PM earlier; thanks for the message. Sorry I can't reply directly. I think you'll be okay with your latest purchase. Re: your KF question, it was definitely Oxfordshire!

I retract that... Not "a lot" are scumbags.

A lot of agents are really great and try to do an honest job.

However, there are the following things which mean agents get a bad name:

- There are a lot of lazy agents - they don't try to be deceitful, they just can't be bothered to do a really outstanding job (or even a good job), which is a shame.

- Agents are dealing with a very important transaction for our clients, so when something goes wrong, it tends to go very wrong. Sometimes the agent gets blamed for something that is not their fault, though this is rare if you have properly guided your clients and buyers through the process so they actually understand it instead of being a pompous fool.

- There is no qualification required to become an agent, unlike pretty much any professional services job I can think of, so the barriers to entry are low. Anyone can become an agent which generally leads to a higher % of incompetence than other professions.

- Training is exceptionally poor. This leads to a poor customer experience as the agents don't really understand what their job is and how they should conduct it.

- Rewards are high and (as above) barriers to entry are low. This causes furious competition between firms and can create scenarios where agents will resort to dirty tricks in order to win business (e.g. overvaluing property).

So bar the last point, agents don't tend to be actively acting as scumbags. There are just such a huge number of issues with the industry as it is which need to change for it to be recognised as a profession like it is in the US and other countries. As I mentioned previously, I strongly feel that we are going to see the world of agency shift to a self-employed model over the next few years - your high st agent as you know it will die, the poor performers will exit the profession, and the top individuals in each area will dominate and take all the spoils...

Watch this space.

[22s]

Joey Deacon said:

How is the market now the 5% government backed mortgages have kicked in? Is it back to how it was in 2014 where every house was a block viewing where 20 couples were all looking around the same house? 20 worried couples all looking at each other before the estate agent announces he has already had a full asking price offer from someone who has not even seen the house so it ends up going to sealed bids?

It seems to be that there are very few houses coming to market and everything seems to be going SSTC in days.

Is it all as crazy as I think it is right now?

It's pretty busy for the right stock (family houses or flats with big gardens/terraces). A colleague in south-east London had an open day at the weekend with 14 back-to-back viewings!

(Note: we cannot do proper "open houses" with multiple parties in the property at once at the moment due to Covid!

FiF said:

Great thread OP and hats off for keeping it going with decent balanced replies. Also credit to posters who haven't down the be deliberately rude to the OP and colleagues like the car salesman thread did which quickly went quite confrontational.

My question is what do you think about this approach to agency. https://freeagent247.com/

My understanding of the approach is that it is completely free to sellers, but their income derives from a buyers fee. I have heard 1% figure mentioned somewhere but it's not that clearly explained.

We won't look at any properties that they are marketing for reasons other than the model.

Thanks!

Not convinced by that model... The seller who is getting "full market value" will actually get whatever the buyer would have offered through a normal agent, less the fee. Plus the fact that you will severely restrict your buyer pool because there will be many who are not willing to pay. And that way you get the best price for the property is by exposing it to as many prospective buyers as possible!

From a seller's point of view, you're also not the one paying the agent so there becomes a weird conflict where you begin to question who the agent is acting for. The counter to that is that technically the buyer is paying a normal agent as the fee comes out of the money they pay for the property, so arguably that conflict already exists in a less blatant manner...

I'm not convinced!

B9 said:

We're viewing a property this week, our house isn't on the market.

Market is competitive and we're likely to offer over asking. We still might not offer the highest, so which of these scenarios is likely to play to our favour when (if) making an offer

1) Our house has just been put on the market with another agent
2) Our house isn't yet on the market, but we're 'brochure ready' with another agent (photo's done etc, one click upload to rightmove)
3) At the time of making the offer, we ask the selling agent to sell our property. They've already carried out a valuation on our property, but they're 0.3% higher fee than the agent mentioned in 1 & 2.

We're not in a contract with agent A

Cheers

Edited by B9 on Monday 19th April 11:17

None are particularly great positions from a seller/agent point of view. Basically, an agent/seller generally wants the person who will offer the most and complete in the least amount of time.

With this in mind:

- Definitely not 2, as you are worst of both worlds (not on the market and not going to market with the agent.

- Maybe 3 as it will keep the agent sweet. However, from a professional agency point of view this really shouldn't influence whether you accept an offer or not (unless it really is the best one on the table). It also means the agent has double the pressure of selling your property and in order to sell their existing client's property. If you're anticipating a competitive situation then it's unlikely this route will work and wash with the seller.

- That leaves 1. Probably best in this situation. Shows you are motivated and you will hopefully have interest which you can use to bolster your offer.

Good luck!

[22s]

*Badger* said:

I think, speaking from a position I am in now, that regardless of if there is something you would like to move to, if you have committed to moving and don't see a long term future in your current home, you should list it at the earliest opportunity.

I've had two valuations now (third pending on Friday) and off the back of this, it'll be going on the market, despite there currently being nothing we like on the open market in our location and budget. I like to think it will hold us in a stronger position once something does become available in what is a fast-paced market. (If it doesn't the worst that could happen is we could accept an offer but later lose a buyer due to our delays).

We've only physically viewed one property, have been turned down from viewing another based on our own position and have done location drive-by's on loads of houses that are currently on the market. In my location and budget stuff is on RM and 24 hours later is SSTC, even though I am registered with all the local estate agents for early notification, I am simply not able to compete without my house at least being up for sale.

I have also had to accept that even if we sold today and bought tomorrow, we are unlikely to complete before the £500k Stamp Duty Threshold Deadline.

It definitely help when putting offers forward. And if you get an outstanding result from your sale and are still unable to find something suitable, you can maybe rent somewhere for a few months with a bit of the extra dosh to put in a brilliant chain-free position for your move (maybe able to negotiate the value of the rent or more off of the price of your next place due to your stronger position).

Very unlikely to hit SDLT 30th June holiday deadline now.

Joey Deacon said:

If you are a seller then there is a lot of effort involved in actual enabling someone to view your property. Personally I would spend hours cleaning to ensure the house is spotless and then having to go out while the viewing is taking place.

In the past I have got up extra early on a Saturday, showered, had breakfast then cleaned the bathroom and kitchen ready for the viewing. Only to see the agent pacing outside on his phone trying to get hold of the viewer who couldn't be bothered getting out of bed and is now avoiding the agent.

I know not everybody is like me having viewed houses with the sink full of breakfast dishes, but that is just how I like to do things.

If you are not at least on the market then I personally am not going to bother wasting hours of my time cleaning before a viewing.

Thank you on behalf of your agent - it makes a massive difference when people do these things and it is (at least by me) massively appreciated. You're opening up your house to strangers and keeping it in showhome condition which is incredibly disruptive, so I always make sure to thank my clients for doing so.

z4RRSchris said:

im a developer, agents i suspect will be gone in 5 years, the market is moving away from them quickly.

Interesting. Can you share more?

From an insider's point of view, and being as unbiased as I can be, I suspect you are wrong and the opposite is actually going to happen with more independent "realtors" entering the market.

Online agents such as PurpleBricks are also losing market share now people have realised they don't work that well.

For new build properties with perfect information regarding the property available and an in-house sales team I can see why a third-party agent wouldn't be needed.

Very intrigued to hear if I've missed something.

*Badger* said:

I completely agree. I do the same when even having EA's around for valuations etc. Yes if it ends up being a drawn out process it does become a minor headache, but I'd want to present my property at it's best possible. Sadly, as you allude, not all sellers are the same.

As above, thank you.

105.4 said:

Thank you for the reply

You're welcome, good luck!

Fast Bug said:

There wasn't anything on the market we liked when we put our house on the market. We just knew that we wanted to move, and we would be in a better position if a house came up for sale having already lost a house by not being on the market. As our agent said to us, nobody can force you to move out, so if you don't find anything you like then you don't move. There's a house near us that has been on and off the market for the past 18-24 months, by all accounts they keep losing buyers as they're looking for a unicorn of a house to downsize to. Shame, as I'd have loved to buy the house, but we didn't even view when we heard that

It's always a tricky balance! One of the best ways (if suitable, which it isn't always, especially with kids etc) is to sell, move into rented / with family, then have the cash in hand to pounce when the right thing comes along. Also far less stressful than having to line up multiple parties etc.

p1doc said:

Countdown said:

Why, on god's green earth, do Estate Agents use those stupid fisheye cameras to try and make rooms look longer than they are?

It only works on the unsuspecting. After a few wasted visits buyers realise that it's just an annoying trick designed to try and con them. Why not show realistic pictures in the first place?

remember going to see house with lovely garden in pics postage stamp sized in real life lol

Depressingly too common!