House buying process

[David Hearn]

Yes, we got a leaflet through our door from Foxtons saying that they, on average, get 98% of the asking price - showing it as a good reason to go with them.

David

[Ronald Raygun]

That's a pretty meaningless statistic if there's a corresponding tendency to recommend lower asking prices than rival agents who recommend a higher price and achieve, on average, a lower fraction of it.

After all, if the seller overrides the agent's recommended asking price by increasing it by 10%, they're not going to be as likely to achieve 98% of 110%, are they?

On the other hand, it's a useful statistic for buyers. They know that if they offer 2% under the asking price of a property marketed by Foxtons, they're likely to get it without much haggling.

We have similar wishy-washy guidelines in Scotland, and the skill of buyers' solicitors is to know how sellers' solicitors think in terms of the fiddle factors they recommend. For example, the selling solicitor (equivalent to English estate agent - estate agents as such, who are not also solicitors, are few and far between here) will visit a prospective vendor and between them they'll come up with a figure of how much they're *likely to get* for the place. Then it will be downrated by some magic fiddle factor pulled out of a hat. A property expected to fetch £170k might well be marketed at "offers over £140k". Some firms have reputations for setting these asking prices lower than others, the idea being to attract more interest by advertising the same property for as little as offers over £125k, say. So you know you will probably need to offer

130% of a property marketed by W (not naming any names) but only 120% of a similar property marketed by most others, for an equal chance of acceptance. Not very helpful if you're not in the know, but it must work or they wouldn't do it.

Of course both practices are susceptible to the "must have" buyer phenomenon, where pre-emptive offers too good to refuse come in.

[tony sayer]

As well they might say that. Do you *know* if its true?...

[David Hearn]

Hehe - yeah, I don't *know* if its true - however, when we sold our place with a different agent, we sold for 96% of the original asking price (100% of the later reduced one) and bought our place for 97% asking price. Our friends also sold for 96% of asking price and purchased for 96% of asking price.

So, its in the right region at least!

David

[Andy Coleman]

I sold a house a couple of years ago to some first time buyers. I was moving into a flat I owned while we looked for another house so it was a similar situation to yours. I can't remember the exact dates but the whole process took not much more than four weeks and that was over a Christmas period. So it can be done if both sides have solicitors that are on the ball and the finance is straight forward.

Andy

[Owain]

"Drew" wrote | The Scottish system tends to be favoured by sellers and hated | by buyers.

For buyers it has the advantage of removing almost all risk of gazumping early on in the process. (Apart from first-time buyers and second-home buyers) buyers are usually also sellers, so removing uncertainty helps everyone. Did you see that English programme about house chains earlier this week, where the cash buyer (a lawyer!) threatened to bring the whole chain down if he didn't get a discount?

The Scottish system works well where there is a fairly even match between properties and buyers with only a few buyers putting in bids on a property. It starts to fall down when 15 or 20 buyers are all chasing the same 2-bed flat.

Not all property is sold o/o, the slower moving stuff is sold fixed price to help move it quickly.

I know it's fashionable to denigrate lawyers (see above) but the Scottish system, being led by solicitors in a small country, has the advantage of a small legal profession, most of whom will know each other and have to work with each other in the future, and all of whom are responsible for paying for each other's professional indemnity fund. Sharp practice will not be viewed with favour.

Owain

[the q]

big snip

The Q

[di]

Isn't there now an obligaiton for sellers to have a survey?

[Chris Game]

He seemed reasonable compared to the pair who denied knowledge of the listed status of their place and it's barn conversion, in the meantime demanding the place they were buying was finished to their requirements!

[Freda]

Chris Game said

Depends on which end you are on I suppose - our first time buyer tried the same thing on with us. We thought long and hard but eventually agreed to a small discount.

But of course, if he hadn't pulled this last minute stunt we would probably have exchanged before Christmas, which in the event would have been a disaster for me.

[James Hart]

One of my employees is currently going through the process of becoming a first time buyer. He offered 100k against an asking price of 107950, the agents came back and said the vendors wouldn't accept less than 105, which he agreed to. The agents then came back again and said 'sorry we meant 106, but the vendor will definitely sell at that', so he agreed to that. They then came back again and said 'sorry we meant 107'. My bloke told them where to go. There's quite a lot on the market round here between 100-110 and there's no need for him to go chasing the price upwards when there's other properties to investigate first.

[Richard Faulkner]

In message , "Di @ Freebies Network UK" writes

No. It is mooted for 2006, but it was also mooted for 2001, and 2003.

Would you trust a sellers survey??

[Gin Smith]

well i had been renting the house i bought for 3 years prior to buying

- landlady gave me 1st refusal - she sold including all contents having deducted potential estate agent fees fom the asking price. There were no upper or lower chains, but due to the PITA solictor it still all took just over 2 months

Gin

[tony sayer]

In article , Gin Smith writes

Always seems the solicitors and legal ones for any delay. The one that did my last conveyance refused to take any communications via e-mail!.

Just how olde worlde is that?..

[John Laird]

More to the point, I think the legal situation will be very complex. Either the vendor will be tied up in knots by way of implied responsibility(*), or the law will have to find a way of showing the surveyor acted for the buyer when they clearly had no contract.

(*) Although there is an element of this already in Scottish property law. I nearly had my buyer chasing me for a plumber's bill to correct a slightly dodgy toilet flush (it worked every time if you had the knack). Apparently we should have said the toilet flush was not perfect. I rather thought this was the point of their survey.

[stuart noble]

My only contribution to this is to say that most agents will sell a house for 1%. Foxtons are a particularly slimey bunch. If both parties use the same solicitor, it doesn't half speed things up. Fixed price conveyancing is the way to go. Use a firm in a remote part of the country and they're grateful for a £300 fee. In London they won't pick up the phone for that sort of money.

[Ronald Raygun]

"Surveys On Line" have cracked that one. Although they are initially commissioned by the seller, they *do* have a contract with the buyer, because they sell them a copy of the report on the cheap, before they make up their minds whether to bid, on condition that, if they do buy the property, they pay the full survey fee minus what they paid already, and also get the benefit of full indemnity.

The only remaining potential problem is that the seller, having commissioned the survey *and seen the report* is at that point at liberty to put a lid on it and elect not to let any buyers see it. But that means the seller has to pay the survey fee which would otherwise be borne by the eventual buyer. The seller also has to pay the fee if the property is bought by someone who didn't buy the cheap copy.

No, that's not the point of the survey. If the offer to purchase contains a condition that "the services shall be in good working order" and you chose not to reject that condition, they've got you over a barrel.

I suspect that if, as you seem to imply by using the word "nearly", you got away with not paying that bill, it is because the buyer went ahead with getting a plumber in off his own bat without first notifying you of the defect and giving you the opportunity to fix it. Either that, or he did point it out and your teaching him the knack obviated the need for calling anyone in.

[Pete]

In article ,

Nope, you don't have to have a survey done in advance but it is usual that it is done before an offer is made.

In a rising/competitive market, the Scottish system is a bit of a nightmare for a buyer. You can shell out loads of money on surveys and still not get a place.

Pete

[John Laird]

I see.

More that my solicitor (who charged a small fortune) did not make it clear it presumably was, as you suggest, in the contract. I know we stated the burglar alarm had not been used for some time. Having moved around England, and got used to the fact that you were lucky if the vendors left the light bulbs in, never mind guaranteeing there was even working electricity, I got caught out.

I believe he had a plumber friend who adjusted something in 30 seconds. They obviously decided not to send on a bill.

[Richard Faulkner]

In message , John Laird writes

Taking legal action against a surveyor and/or a seller after the event will be a long, complex, and expensive process.

Having your own survey means you choose the surveyor, and he is working for you and noone else.

Relying on a sellers survey leaves you in the dark - was he any good? was it a quick cursory glance, or in depth? Was there a backhander involved?

In most instances it should be fine, but I can imagine the scenarios where the dodgy builder is in league with the dodgy surveyor, and so on....