On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:30:52 +0100, Richard Faulkner
wrote:

In message , Andy Hall
writes
I must admit that when I first became an estate agent, I believed that
every buyer and seller were honourable, and took their word at face
value. As time went by, I learned that this was somewhat naive and, as
more time went by, I actually reached the point where it was difficult
to believe any body until they actually proved themselves to me.


As a matter of interest, Richard, was this because they deliberately
set out to mislead or had rose tinted spectacles about what they and
others could achieve?

I could write a book about it, (but cant be bothered g).

Heres a few:

1) Buyer says its a cash purchase. I ask if he's got the cash in the
bank. He says yes.

2 weeks, or 6 months later, (or whatever), after lots of chasing and
being reassured that all is OK, a building society surveyor turns up.

Never had cash in the first place.

This lead me to ask most people who said they had cash to prove it with
a bank statement or building society book or similar. Some showed it
without hassle. Others got really offended. Of those who got really
offended, where we took their word, didnt have the cash.

OK, so fibbers and timewasters. One wonders what they hope to
achieve.


2) Buyer says he's got a mortgage.

3 weeks later we find that lender wont lend due to some financial
reason.

There was a period where one of my colleagues would come up with a
Buyers or Sellers "Phrase of the Week", one of these was "I've got my
mortgage".

The guy is probably naive, or hasn't done his homework..



3) Buyer says this is my offer, and I definitely wont negotiate after
survey.

3 weeks later - buyer is back to negotiate several thousand pounds off
due to "normal" things in a survey.

Buyer is playing a game, or is again naive and in the cooling off
period thinks he has offered too much - the survey is a perfect way to
slippery shoulder the blame.




4) Seller says they have decided not to sell their house. 2 months
later, we find out that someone who we introduced has bought it, (In
most of these case, I started legal proceedings, or actually went to
court, and got paid).

Seller thinks you're stupid. He's again the naive one.



5) Seller agrees and signs a sole agency agreement, but doesnt want a
for sale board. 2 weeks later we find that they are on the market with
several estate agents.

Seller thinks you're stupid. As above.



6) I lost count of the number of people who decided not to sell or buy,
due to a death in the family. I am sure that this was sometimes true,
but I can recall a few whose father, mother, grandparent, had died 2 or
3 times g

This is so silly. You probably wouldn't mind if people just said
that they had changed their mind. Why they feel it necessary to put
the blame (if there indeed was any) on something like this, I don't
know. A form of saving face, I guess.



I could go on.....

1), 4), and 5), are definitely misleading. 2) and 3) could be naive, or
could be deliberate attempts to gain the chance to purchase, knowing
full well that they may not be able to.

I would suggest that the parties to almost every house sale/purchase,
are on tenterhooks until exchange of contracts, for fear of the deal not
proceeding, either at all, or at the agreed price. Clearly, there are
many genuine reasons why a deal may not proceed, but there are also many
devious reasons.

I'm not sure that I understand why people would want to enter into a
prospective purchase knowing that they can't meet the price, unless
they hope that they get some way down the track and can reduce the
price, e.g. on survey, when the vendor is further down the track on
their purchase and doesn't want the sale to fall.

All of which illustrates that whether for genuine, stupid or nefarious
reasons, a sale isn't a sale until exchange of contract and that
setting or perceiving higher expectations is probably unwise.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl