Bypassing estate agent and dealing direct with vendor
Discussion
We've been having an interesting time with a local estate agent who we were suspicious had a 'preferred buyer' lined up for a house we like. It turns out the agent did not submit our offer for the house, which is higher than the offer another buyer has put forward (we are in a decent position being chain free). The agent informed us they had submitted it, but the vendor was still going with the other offer, as it was made first. This didn't add up because they were continuing to show people around the house.
We managed to contact the vendor to check he had received our offer. He then called to say he hadn't received it and had suspicions that something was going on and the agents were pushing their preferred buyers very strongly and encouraging him to accept their offer. Needless to say, we are pissed off that our offer was not put forward and are now separately meeting the vendor, who has asked us for another viewing and a chat, to discuss how to proceed.
I believe the agents have breached their contract with him and also not acted within the law in not putting forward our offer. My question is, if the agreement with the agents is ripped up for breach of contract and we deal directly with the vendor from here on, what should we watch out for? Are there any pitfalls to going direct? The agents are currently not aware that both we and vendor know about their tactics...
We managed to contact the vendor to check he had received our offer. He then called to say he hadn't received it and had suspicions that something was going on and the agents were pushing their preferred buyers very strongly and encouraging him to accept their offer. Needless to say, we are pissed off that our offer was not put forward and are now separately meeting the vendor, who has asked us for another viewing and a chat, to discuss how to proceed.
I believe the agents have breached their contract with him and also not acted within the law in not putting forward our offer. My question is, if the agreement with the agents is ripped up for breach of contract and we deal directly with the vendor from here on, what should we watch out for? Are there any pitfalls to going direct? The agents are currently not aware that both we and vendor know about their tactics...
It may not be as suspicious as you thought. My initial thinking is that the estate agent doesn't believe your offer is genuine, perhaps because something you said meant he felt that you would not get the mortgage so the deal would fall through? (May not be relevant in your case but similar happened when I sold my last house.)
Well there's a decision in principle and a reasonable deposit plus no chain, which ought to tell the agent the offer has a good chance of proceeding. I can't see why they would tell us the offer has been submitted and then not actually do it, and as far as I know it is a legal requirement that they put it forward?
It's not really your concern.
Buyers don't pay the agent, the seller does.
So he is taking on the risk of paying or not paying them.
My limited experience of getting out of agent fees suggests that they go to the ends of the earth to avoid that, for obvious reasons.
Whether or not they pass on an offer can be disputed (he said - she said) but the fact that they marketed the property (which is presumably how you found it) is usually sufficient evidence that they have done something worthy of paying.
IANAL.
Either way, as I said - not your problem.
In a worst case, it might delay completion as the vendor and agent haggle it out but since it is the solicitor who eventually sends the money to the relevant parties, and he usually wants and easy life, I suspect he would recommend just paying up.
Agents pull this crap all the time and still get paid.
Buyers don't pay the agent, the seller does.
So he is taking on the risk of paying or not paying them.
My limited experience of getting out of agent fees suggests that they go to the ends of the earth to avoid that, for obvious reasons.
Whether or not they pass on an offer can be disputed (he said - she said) but the fact that they marketed the property (which is presumably how you found it) is usually sufficient evidence that they have done something worthy of paying.
IANAL.
Either way, as I said - not your problem.
In a worst case, it might delay completion as the vendor and agent haggle it out but since it is the solicitor who eventually sends the money to the relevant parties, and he usually wants and easy life, I suspect he would recommend just paying up.
Agents pull this crap all the time and still get paid.
walm said:
It's not really your concern.
Buyers don't pay the agent, the seller does.
So he is taking on the risk of paying or not paying them.
My limited experience of getting out of agent fees suggests that they go to the ends of the earth to avoid that, for obvious reasons.
Whether or not they pass on an offer can be disputed (he said - she said) but the fact that they marketed the property (which is presumably how you found it) is usually sufficient evidence that they have done something worthy of paying.
IANAL.
Either way, as I said - not your problem.
In a worst case, it might delay completion as the vendor and agent haggle it out but since it is the solicitor who eventually sends the money to the relevant parties, and he usually wants and easy life, I suspect he would recommend just paying up.
Agents pull this crap all the time and still get paid.
Fair enough - I think it's breach of contract but yes it's between vendor and agent to argue I suppose. It's certainly our concern to the extent that the agent didn't put forward a strong offer, potentially losing us the house. Sharp practice in any case.Buyers don't pay the agent, the seller does.
So he is taking on the risk of paying or not paying them.
My limited experience of getting out of agent fees suggests that they go to the ends of the earth to avoid that, for obvious reasons.
Whether or not they pass on an offer can be disputed (he said - she said) but the fact that they marketed the property (which is presumably how you found it) is usually sufficient evidence that they have done something worthy of paying.
IANAL.
Either way, as I said - not your problem.
In a worst case, it might delay completion as the vendor and agent haggle it out but since it is the solicitor who eventually sends the money to the relevant parties, and he usually wants and easy life, I suspect he would recommend just paying up.
Agents pull this crap all the time and still get paid.
tjk123 said:
Fair enough - I think it's breach of contract but yes it's between vendor and agent to argue I suppose. It's certainly our concern to the extent that the agent didn't put forward a strong offer, potentially losing us the house. Sharp practice in any case.
The agent doesn't work for you though. So "losing you the house" is no concern of his.And frankly, he is hardly incentivised to get the maximum amount for the house - he is FAR more incentivised to make sure the deal gets done. +/- £100 of commission is neither here nor there for him.
And yes, literally 100% of them are utter knuckle-dragging s
t-for-brains s, I agree.Estate agents are also legally obliged to pass on any other offers for the property right up to when contracts are exchanged.
https://www.gov.uk/buy-sell-your-home/estate-agent...
So basically 99% of estate agents send every offer in writing to their clients.
I am aware of previous instances where the "preferred bidder" proves to be in some way connected to said agent.
Deal directly with the vendor, have absolutely no morals about doing so. When the agent inevitably throws a hissy fit, leave it to the vendor to sort it out.
walm said:
The agent doesn't work for you though. So "losing you the house" is no concern of his.
And frankly, he is hardly incentivised to get the maximum amount for the house - he is FAR more incentivised to make sure the deal gets done. +/- £100 of commission is neither here nor there for him.
And yes, literally 100% of them are utter knuckle-dragging st-for-brains s, I agree.
Yes I understand the agents supposedly work for the client, i.e. vendor. In which case he should be achieving a balance between best price and likelihood of proceeding and putting forward all offers for the vendor to consider ,unless the offer is clearly made by a total chancer. Simply not advising the vendor of an offer doesn't look after the vendor's best interests. Obviously agents are looking out for themselves - and I think the finance of their preferred buyer has perhaps gone through them too, giving them a much higher vested interest in that sale proceeding. And frankly, he is hardly incentivised to get the maximum amount for the house - he is FAR more incentivised to make sure the deal gets done. +/- £100 of commission is neither here nor there for him.
And yes, literally 100% of them are utter knuckle-dragging s
t-for-brains s, I agree.As an aside, my suspicion is partly borne out of experience as my folks had the same issue some years back - a strong offer not being passed on to a seller. They found out by chance the offer hadn't been put forward as the agent was trying to buy the house for herself. She got rumbled and then sacked and my parents bought the house. Estate agents deserve their reputation as far as I'm concerned.
Gargamel said:
Deal directly with the vendor, have absolutely no morals about doing so. When the agent inevitably throws a hissy fit, leave it to the vendor to sort it out.
Probably the best advice. The vendor holds the contract with the agent and the payment of commission isn't your concern - don't even get involved. If the vendor wants to have a scrap about the fee and whether the agent has breached contract, let them get on with it.
tjk123 said:
As an aside, my suspicion is partly borne out of experience as my folks had the same issue some years back - a strong offer not being passed on to a seller. They found out by chance the offer hadn't been put forward as the agent was trying to buy the house for herself. She got rumbled and then sacked and my parents bought the house. Estate agents deserve their reputation as far as I'm concerned.
Same as any industry, there are good eggs and bad eggs.A point of note - you will often receive the same level of respect from an agent that you afford them. I'll go well above the call of duty to help a purchaser who is pleasant to deal with. On the other hand, an agent may offer the bare minimum assistance to an applicant who shows their feelings in line with yours above.
FrankAbagnale said:
Same as any industry, there are good eggs and bad eggs.
A point of note - you will often receive the same level of respect from an agent that you afford them. I'll go well above the call of duty to help a purchaser who is pleasant to deal with. On the other hand, an agent may offer the bare minimum assistance to an applicant who shows their feelings in line with yours above.
I tend to agree, and we've been nothing but pleasant towards them. On the face of it they've been friendly, but in reality we've been treated with disdain and dishonesty, so I feel we owe them precisely bugger all respect.A point of note - you will often receive the same level of respect from an agent that you afford them. I'll go well above the call of duty to help a purchaser who is pleasant to deal with. On the other hand, an agent may offer the bare minimum assistance to an applicant who shows their feelings in line with yours above.
tjk123 said:
I tend to agree, and we've been nothing but pleasant towards them. On the face of it they've been friendly, but in reality we've been treated with disdain and dishonesty, so I feel we owe them precisely bugger all respect.
Good man. It sounds to me like you've got it all in hand. Best of luck with it moving forward.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff