Whoever shows, it should be without the others presence - too many cooks and all that.
Personally, I grew to letting people look around a house without me breathing down their neck, and being available to answer questions. Invariably there were many questions I could not answer without talking to the vendor, so I tended to suggest that, if vendors were available, (i.e. lived there), that they let people look around their houses freely, whilst being around to answer questions.
Edinburgh (where I used to live) didn't really have estate agents. Instead there was a single shop in George St with every house in Edinburgh for sale in it. Paid for by the vendor solicitors (and hence you and me) but MUCH cheaper than an estate agent.
I'd assumed this was still the case but perhaps it isn't.
"G&M" wrote | > It looks very scray but it is just the estate agents acting like | > scum, and coming up with some impressive figures to dupe the | > next client with. | Edinburgh (where I used to live) didn't really have estate agents. | Instead there was a single shop in George St with every house in | Edinburgh for sale in it. Paid for by the vendor solicitors | (and hence you and me) but MUCH cheaper than an estate agent. | I'd assumed this was still the case but perhaps it isn't.
Not quite every house for sale in Edinburgh, but pretty close. And their website has schedules in PDF for most properties and links to online mapping. Pretty slick.
Its actually a marketing thing designed to get a seller to put the house on with them. Seller believes they will get more than the price - sounds better than the agent who just gives a price.
When my folks bought a flat in Edinburgh, they were going to offer quite a bit more than the property was worth because they thought it was particularly suitable. Their solicitor advised them to offer the market value as there was no point in paying more than the market value. Usefully for them, everyone else had offered less than the market value, so they were the highest bidder by £500. I don't know how typical this is, but it worked quite well for them (I guess they might have got lucky).
"G&M" wrote | So are prices [in Edinburgh] sensible, or do the solicitors | play the same silly game?
Edinburgh's a strange property market. There's a shortage of houses but, because wages for most people remain moderate, prices can't escalate out of control. So you get maybe 15 people putting in offers for a property, but they'll all be putting in about the same amount because that's what they can afford. If they could afford a lot more they wouldn't be bidding on that property, they'd be going for a nicer one. The winning bidder might be offering only £250 more than someone else. Or the date of entry might be more convenient for the vendor; I've seen that determine which offer won.
Any solicitor who's a member of ESPC can see the ESPC sales records for all other properties in the area, so can inform their client of what is an appropriate offer to make, without having to conduct a lot of land registry searches. Of course, the selling solicitor uses the same information to advise the vendor at what price point to pitch the property.
As the offers are usually sealed bids submitted before a closing date, 'offers over' is a fair description of the process. Sometimes an offer under the o/o price will be accepted. However properties are also offered 'fixed price' where the vendor intends to accept the first offer without going to a closing date.
Bear in mind that in Scotland offers/acceptances are binding once missives are concluded, which maybe 10 - 14 days after offer. There is very little opportunity for gazumping/gazundering or breaking a chain. Some parts of Scotland are trialling a single survey scheme now, as surveys traditionally have to be done before offer, which is okay if you only have to do one or two before being a winning bidder, but a pain if you have to do a dozen and are still unsuccessful.
How could any ordinary bloke possibly finance a dozen surveys with any justification? The Scottish system is as crazy as trying to herd cats. If I buy a car, I don't have to get it tested; the "owner" gets it tested! Houses need to come to market with an "MOT" already sorted so that buyers know upfront what they're letting themselves in for.
The analogy doesn't entirely match the housing requirement. Cars have MOTs to ensure that they are checked to be in roadworthy at least once a year (after the initial 3 year period), regardless of who owns it. It isn't done for sale purposes - a valid MOT is just another selling point.
For pre-sale-vendor-commissioned surveys, it's an initially appealing proposition, but has problems.
First. Privity of contract. If the owner has a survey carried out then the surveyor has a contract with the owner. If a purchasor relies upon this and it is subsequently found to be materially lacking, then they would not be able to sue the surveyor. At least (AIUI) as things stand at the moment. If the duty of care is extended to potentially anyone buyiung a property, then expect survey prices to rise as a result (the surveyor's professional indemnity insurance costs would be bound to increase).
This could be resolved by the purchasor sueing the vendor who would then have to sue the surveyor, but as a vendor would you wish to get embroiled in such legal wranglings, especially as you may not have insurances to cover such legal costs? Hell, no!
Second. Time limits. If a survey is carried out for the vendor, then it reflects the state of the property at the time of the survey. If the vendor cannot sell the property for a long time then the survey may no longer be valid. So, do you want to put the expense of periodic surveys onto a hapless vendor who could be selling due to financial difficulty anyway?
It seems to me that the Scottish sealed bid system is far from ideal - it can introduce considerable uncertainty into the equation for potential buyers who have to wait and see whether they have won the bid before they can bid on another property. There are elements of the binding nature of acceptance of the winning bid in that system that are appealing, however.
The only real problem with the system in the rest of the UK is that purchasor and vendor can agree a sale, shake hands, whatever, but until you have exchanged contracts this means absolutely zippo. You can't exchange until you have all the finance, surveys, completion date, etc in place, so there is a period of limbo in which real time and money expenditure take place, all on an act of faith. Hence the deplorable practises of gazumping, etc take place.
"RichardS" wrote | "Mike Mitchell" wrote | > >two before being a winning bidder, but a pain if you have to do a | > >dozen and are still unsuccessful. | > How could any ordinary bloke possibly finance a dozen surveys with | > any justification? The Scottish system is as crazy as trying to | > herd cats.
As I said, it's not normally a problem, just in areas where many people are chasing few houses. And there is now a pilot single survey project in four areas of Scotland.
| It seems to me that the Scottish sealed bid system is far from ideal - | it can introduce considerable uncertainty into the equation for | potential buyers who have to wait and see whether they have won | the bid before they can bid on another property.
They don't have very long to wait though - in many cases, if closing date is at midday, they'll hear verbally that afternoon. Offers don't sit around for weeks being thought about. That's a lot less uncertainty than:
| The only real problem with the system in the rest of the UK is that | purchasor and vendor can agree a sale, shake hands, whatever, but | until you have exchanged contracts this means absolutely zippo. You | can't exchange until you have all the finance, surveys, completion | date, etc in place, so there is a period of limbo in which real | time and money expenditure take place, all on an act of faith.
The /real/ difficulty is for those selling in England and buying in Scotland. They cannot pull out of their Scottish purchase if their sale in England collapses.
Why does everyone harp on about the deplorable act of gazumping, and completely fail to mention some of the "tricks" that buyers get up to - one of which is gazundering, and another is changing their mind because they see a better house, (bit like changing your mind because you get a better offer?), and another is bidding on several houses, leaving each vendor thinking they are buying theirs, then picking the plum when all the vendors are up shit creek - I could go on.......
quite right - that was the "etc..." that I was referring to, but for some reason couldn't rmember whether gazundering was the term or if it was something my mind had just made up...
"N. Thornton" wrote | > The /real/ difficulty is for those selling in England and | > buying in Scotland. They cannot pull out of their Scottish | > purchase if their sale in England collapses. | So how is it enforced?
In Glasgow, kneecapping :-)
| In most cases the only significant assets | the buyer of the Scottish property has is the English house!
It is possible to be sued for breach of contract in Scotland and have assets seized in England. Although the countries have separate jurisdictions they do not operate in isolation. In practice, things like bridging loans are used.
The buyer is certainly liable to be sued under these circumstances, but bear in mind the vendor is not likely to be suing for the value of the property which he had contracted to buy, but the money which has been lost by the sale falling through, eg readvertising, more legal fees, interest payments, whatever. And it may well be that it's not worthwhile for the seller to sue for that amount, or that they just don't want the hassle.
thats the point: all the scottish seller could seize would be the english property. And if it wasnt selling, presumably it isnt reaching the asking price. Ie if its sold, quickly topay off, the scottish seller wont get what they want anyway. And a loan depends on the buyer being able to afford one, which in the circumstances they may not. Plus suing is only gonig to add to the amount theyre seeking. So IRL they may be best off putting up with buyer delays.
Law is one thing, being able to extract nonexistent assets is another, as is benefitting from taking things to court.
"N. Thornton" wrote | > It is possible to be sued for breach of contract in Scotland and | > have assets seized in England. Although the countries have | > separate jurisdictions they do not operate in isolation. | thats the point: all the scottish seller could seize would be the | english property. And if it wasnt selling, presumably it isnt | reaching the asking price. Ie if its sold, quickly topay off, | the scottish seller wont get what they want anyway.
But as has been noted, the Scottish seller does not need to sue for the full value of his house. If the original contract on which the buyer reneges was for £100k, the seller sells his house to a new buyer for say £80k, and then sues the reneging buyer for £20k plus costs - not the full £100k.
Unless the buyer was going to buy with >80% mortgage, it is likely he will have assets or equity to meet this demand even allowing for a lowered selling price on his own property.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.