On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 09:24:34 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:



Look, if properties in England and Wales are priced at a fixed asking
price, as they largely are, then buyers have the choice of choosing to
go for this or that property purely from comparing the particulars.

But they aren't at a fixed asking price. The vendor can move that up
and down on a whim.


That is competition working. Where is the competition in Scotland? If
we're all agreed that Scottish OO figures are just playing silly
buggers with the true valuation, it's as if everyone is driving blind
down a foggy motorway in the wrong direction.

Both are perfectly reasonable forms of competition.

It's completely normal to have instances in buying and selling when
you know what the competitors are offering and other instances where
you do not. Both are fair competitive situations and you have the
choice to bid or not.

You must have led a very sheltered life.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Mike Mitchell wrote in message . ..

Okay, then. Please explain why vendors in Scotland largely pursue this
unfair system, and, as you ponder, think carefully on the "unfair"

It's not unfair on anyone. The rules are written down and everyone has
the same chance to bid.

bit. If buyers are expected to get a valuation, what is wrong with the
concept whereby the vendor, i.e. the bloke with the goods to sell,
gets a valuation and prices the property accordingly? I'll tell you

When you buy a second hand car do you trust the vendors asking price?
Or do you go and get your own valuation from Parkers Guide or by
looking at the prices of similar models? It's no different when buying
a house where the vendor has set a price. You still have to get your
own "valuation" to determine if it's a reasonable price. You then make
an offer based on your judgement. The only difference in the Scottish
system is that you only get one bite of the cherry and do not know if
you are successful until the day all the other offers are opened. I
would argue that the English system is flawed in that people will ask
for more that the property is "worth" in the anticipation that opening
offers will be 10% below the asking price.

why: It's so the vendor can quote some ridiculously low price, thereby
seducing buyers into his web, banking on the fact that buyers will put
in silly (i.e. exaggerated) offers so that the chance of getting *far

Buyers will bid what they think the property is worth to them in their
particular circumstances. Someone who is desperate to live round the
corner from Granny or a good school may assign a financial worth to
such convenience. If another buyer can afford to make, or deems the
property worth, a higher bid than yours and you lose out then that's
just tough. You would probably have been outbid whatever the sales
method.

more* than the property is actually worth is greatly increased. This

A property is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it.
That's why we have fluctuations in property prices as the economy (and
peoples financial situation) changes.

to my mind exactly describes a scam, pure and simple. Basically, as I

Where is the scam? Everyone is entitled to make the best price they
can for whatever they are selling. In a rising market, sealed bids may
tend to maximise the selling price since buyers know they have to make
a high bid to be in with a chance but where is the evidence that
people regularly bid *far more* as you put it?

see it, the vendor is using the system to *take advantage* of the

The vendor is taking advantage of the system to maximise his sale
price. The laws of supply and demand work just as well to determine
the price as in any other system.

MBQ

"Stephen Gower" wrote in message
...
Mike Mitchell wrote:

I think this kind of thing constitutes fraud, certainly morally
anyway. Last night's Location Location Location with the delectable
Kirstie Alsop was for a property in the borders, and every property
shown had an expected achievable price way over the Offers Over price.

Watching this last night, my wife and I decided that a simple tax,
on the difference between the Offers Over price and the final
selling price, charged to the vendor, would encourage them to come
up with a realistic Offers Over price in the first place.
--
Selah


That punishes the seller, who is not directly responsible for setting the
OOp price, which is what you pay an estate agent to do. It is the EA that
need to be discouraged from grossly undervaluing the property. Many will
operate with a sliding scale of commission,e.g. 1% for 5% over, 1,25 for 10%
over and 1.5% for greater, so they put it on at way under to 1. stimulate
interst and 2. ensure eth largest commission. SCUM

cheers

David

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:00:00 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

It's not a gentlemen's club.

You're dead right, there! In Scotland at least, it's a rip-off in
shark-infested waters! We are not talking about multi-million or
multi-billion pound contracts or tenders to build a bridge or a tunnel
under the Alps. We are talking about domestic dwellings which happen
to be, for most people, the one and only large asset they will ever
acquire. And it is simply not fair for the system to allow the kind of
practice to go on where the buyer simply does not know beforehand what
the vendor is willing to accept. You can dress it up any way you like,
but that is how I see it. Not only me, either.

MM

what you tend to ignore, or are perhaps not aware of is that the price that
properties actually sell for is very close to what they are valued at. If
you get a valuation done and pay way over the oddds then you are fully aware
of what you are doing, there is no direct rip off.

Of the two properties I bought one was for £500 less than the market
valuation, where there were no other interested parties, and one for £1000
more where there were about 5 bids. Now if it had been an open bidding
situation I'm pretty sure that I woudl have had to pay some more in the
second case to secure the property, as it was I won by about £100. Nobody
in their right mind is going to apay way over eth market valuation, and this
is generally reflected by the bids people place.

Now the occasional problem arises when a buyer not familiar with the system
is taken in by the estate agents marketing and then pays 10% over the
valuation price, which I've know to happen. This isn't a problem with the
system but a case of people not being advised properly or seeking out decent
advice from a good solicitor who would generally be familiar with the
market.

cheers

David

"Mike Mitchell" wrote
| And it is simply not fair for the system to allow the kind of
| practice to go on where the buyer simply does not know beforehand
| what the vendor is willing to accept.

But the buyer knows exactly what the vendor will accept. The vendor will
accept OFFERS OVER £XXX.

If there is more than one offer at closing date then it is probable the
vendor will accept the highest, but not always certain.

Far clearer than the English "shall we offer below asking price and see what
happens" guff.

Even if the system disadvantages the buyer in some way, most buyers will be
sellers next time around. The system does not have such effect on first time
buyers as most of those are buyign smaller properties or new build, which
are more likely to be offered at fixed price.

Owain

"Mike Mitchell" wrote
| Well, I fundamentrally disagree with all of that, but don't just take
| my word for it, look at what The Scotsman reported only a couple of
| weeks ago:
| "SCOTLAND'S system of buying houses - once greatly envied - is in
| serious crisis as a result of the property boom of the last few
| years. With demand high and supply relatively tight in the main
| urban markets, the gentlemanly sealed-bid system, policed by
| scrupulous solicitors' agents, has gone by the board. ... Nor do
| sellers always gain: the incidence of "gazundering" (where a
| successful buyer reneges on the original offer price) is on the
| increase."

Also known as "nasty English habits coming north" (and I think I can write
that, having worked in an estate agency and being English born myself).

When was the English property system /ever/ described as "gentlemanly" or
"scrupulous"?

Owain

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 10:41:46 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

Ivan Boesky at the University of California's commencement ceremony in
1986.

Isn't that the same Ivan Boesky of insider trading infamy who served a
year or two in gaol, was fined a 100 million bucks and banned for
life? If you're using such people as your yardstick, it explains a
lot!

MM

"Mike Mitchell" wrote
| It's so the vendor can quote some ridiculously low price,
| thereby seducing buyers into his web, banking on the fact
| that buyers will put in silly (i.e. exaggerated) offers so
| that the chance of getting *far more* than the property is
| actually worth is greatly increased.

But if a buyer is prepared to put in a "silly" offer, then that IS what the
property is worth.

| I am seeing secondhand properties advertised at a fixed price,
| so obviously some people must agree with how I see it.

There has always been a case for fixed price marketing, usually when the
vendor does not want to hang around for a closing date to be set, or when
the value of the property can be fairly clearly ascertained and there is not
expected to be a great deal of interest in it. No point in going to closing
date if only one buyer is interested and everyone knows that all the houses
in that street go for £x +/1 £1k anyway.

Owain

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:45:50 +0100, Richard Faulkner
wrote:

In message , Mike Mitchell
writes
What do you intend to do if someone offers to buy your English house
at the asking price, and a week later someone else offers you a thousand
more, cash purchase?

I refuse it, simple as that. You obviously have no concept of an
Englishman's word is his bond. Avarice is a deadly sin, you know.

What are you going to do when your buyer comes back somewhat late in the
deal and revises his/her offer downwards?

Then the buyer is the one who has reneged on the deal, not me. They
have effectively terminated their offer, thus permitting me to open up
the market again.

It is all very well taking the moral high road in relation to sellers
"ripping off" buyers but, in my time as an agent, I saw many many more
buyers trying to rip off sellers than the other way round.

Maybe that is because there is no formal legal agreement until
exchange. If the buyer had to find 10% deposit at the time of the
offer, then buyers would be a lot more circumspect and the time
wasters would stay home.

It is just a function of the way we sell houses in this country.

So? Are we supposed to live with the system like it is for the rest of
time?

In Scotland, nobody is forced to bid for a house, and they only have to
bid what they want - one mans meat and all that.

Of course, no one is forced to do anything, but I maintain that one
should know the price the vendor is willing to accept so that the
buyer knows where he stands and can fairly compare similar properties

In your various posts, are you suggesting that there is one particular
value for any particular house? If so, who polices it?

Of course I am not! You're now trying to invent scenarios in order to
bolster your argument, which must therefore be pretty weak.

Or are you saying that there is a price band for every house - if so,
who decides, and where do you draw the line?

Ditto.

Lets say I genuinely believe, (perhaps naively), that my house is worth
£100,000, and I set a price of Offers Over £90,000. If someone offers me
£200,000, am I to refuse it and tell them that I cannot take more than
say, £110,000?

If you have already agreed with another buyer to accept his offer
nearer your £100K valuation, then yes, you should refuse it if you
want to sleep at night with a clear conscience. That first buyer who
is willing to pay YOUR price, not someone else's valuation, was doing
so in the spirit of fair play and a level playing field, and if you
renege on the deal, ask yourself, who has the moral high ground.

MM

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 10:47:23 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 09:12:46 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 19:56:35 +0100, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:


What do you intend to do if someone offers to buy your English house
at the asking price, and a week later someone else offers you a thousand
more, cash purchase?

I refuse it, simple as that. You obviously have no concept of an
Englishman's word is his bond. Avarice is a deadly sin, you know.

MM

Nobody actually said that you you had *accepted* the first offer.
Had you done so, then I agree, it is important to be of your word.
If you hadn't, and wanted to wait for other offers, it would be
completely reasonable to do so, even if they are above your asking
price.

But if I had accepted the first offer, then you agree with me that it
is wrong to then accept a higher offer, yes?

If you feel otherwise then I would stay out of the property market, or
include a note in the details that you will take the first close
offer. People will be amazed by your naivete and it might help you
make a sale.

People are already aware that I am willing to take a close offer,
because that's what I tell 'em!

MM

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 10:52:05 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 09:24:34 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:



Look, if properties in England and Wales are priced at a fixed asking
price, as they largely are, then buyers have the choice of choosing to
go for this or that property purely from comparing the particulars.

But they aren't at a fixed asking price. The vendor can move that up
and down on a whim.


That is competition working. Where is the competition in Scotland? If
we're all agreed that Scottish OO figures are just playing silly
buggers with the true valuation, it's as if everyone is driving blind
down a foggy motorway in the wrong direction.

Both are perfectly reasonable forms of competition.

It's completely normal to have instances in buying and selling when
you know what the competitors are offering and other instances where
you do not. Both are fair competitive situations and you have the
choice to bid or not.

You must have led a very sheltered life.

Maybe, but they let me out occasionally.

MM

On 2 Sep 2004 04:43:13 -0700, (MBQ) wrote:

The vendor is taking advantage of the system to maximise his sale
price.

Exactly so! Cheating, in other words.

MM

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 13:50:56 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 10:41:46 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

Ivan Boesky at the University of California's commencement ceremony in
1986.

Isn't that the same Ivan Boesky of insider trading infamy who served a
year or two in gaol, was fined a 100 million bucks and banned for
life? If you're using such people as your yardstick, it explains a
lot!

MM


It was a somewhat tongue in cheek remark.

His point is valid, nonetheless. Ultimately, market forces decide
the price levels of transactions and the methods by which they are
done. Anything else, where there are artificial controls or
pseudo-altruistic principles is doomed to failure.
Free markets are governed by that most basic human trait of greed.
Long may it remain so.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:45:50 +0100, Richard Faulkner
wrote:

snip
It is all very well taking the moral high road in relation to sellers
"ripping off" buyers but, in my time as an agent, I saw many many more
buyers trying to rip off sellers than the other way round.

Maybe that is because there is no formal legal agreement until
exchange. If the buyer had to find 10% deposit at the time of the
offer, then buyers would be a lot more circumspect and the time
wasters would stay home.

snip

I just don't get this.

You're currently marketing your house and apparently dismayed at the lack of
offers, yet you would propose a system whereby a potential buyer would have
to cough up £20k in ready cash at the point of making an offer?

Well, it's surely one way to eliminate time-wasters, but you're also going
to eliminate an awful lot of perfectly serious and good buyers in one fell
swoop.

What surity should the buyer have in case you decide to pull out of the sale
(for whatever reason)? Would you be required to stump up £20k to be held in
escrow until the transaction is completed?



--
Richard Sampson

mail me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:02:42 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:45:50 +0100, Richard Faulkner
wrote:


Lets say I genuinely believe, (perhaps naively), that my house is worth
£100,000, and I set a price of Offers Over £90,000. If someone offers me
£200,000, am I to refuse it and tell them that I cannot take more than
say, £110,000?

If you have already agreed with another buyer to accept his offer
nearer your £100K valuation, then yes, you should refuse it if you
want to sleep at night with a clear conscience. That first buyer who
is willing to pay YOUR price, not someone else's valuation, was doing
so in the spirit of fair play and a level playing field, and if you
renege on the deal, ask yourself, who has the moral high ground.

What a lot of nonsense.

The appropriate thing to do is to go back to the first buyer and give
them the opportunity to match the other offer.
That is a perfectly reasonable approach that can be done with a clear
conscience.

All of this assumes that one believes that the second offer has equal
or greater merit in terms of the other factors such as ability to
raise the money and to complete other transactions.






MM

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:55:12 +0100, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:

The Scottish price system works from the bottom upwards; IOW, the
price the seller asks is only the bottom "reserve" for a blind auction
system.

And it is this one significant feature that makes it grossly unfair,
in my opinion. It is a method for cheating buyers out of their
hard-earned wherewithal instead of playing fair with them. Question:

but you if you KNOW the market value then that sets your benchmark. The OO
price is irrelevant.

What it does sheat you out of is either the £150 valuation survey, or if you
want to go it alone the couple of quid it takes to look up the land registry
so that you can find out what teh house across the street sodl fo rlast year
(which from what I can work out is how the surveyor does it anyway)


If this is such a wonderful system, why are new homes not sold in this

While its not a wonderful system it is not as bad you make out, and a lot
better than many other system. It can sound horrendous and occasionally
there may indeed be a real horror story, but this is not down to the seller
it is gerneally down to eth bull**** from the estate agents

manner? Why are eggs, butter, bread, milk, cars, boats, trains, or
planes not sold in this manner? What other material good can you name
that keeps the price a secret that you have to guess?


ever bought anything at a nationwide type builders merchant?

Generally I prefer not to pay their over inflated list prices where
possible, but if you're doing enough business with them then things are a
little more reasonable. They tend to operate with an offers under sort of
system. I can walk in and pay their list price or make an offer and perhaps
save 40% off the original £500 order say, (but that's really a secret,
you've got to be in the club and know the password to play), in the case of
selling houses the estate agents and solicitors have there own wee club, but
again if you know the people to talk to then you know exactly how much you
should pay to within £500. My solicitor has always been happy to help out


You can make somebody an offer for anything, all they can do is refuse, the
RRP is after all only a recommendation.

cheers

David

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:04:45 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:


Nobody actually said that you you had *accepted* the first offer.
Had you done so, then I agree, it is important to be of your word.
If you hadn't, and wanted to wait for other offers, it would be
completely reasonable to do so, even if they are above your asking
price.

But if I had accepted the first offer, then you agree with me that it
is wrong to then accept a higher offer, yes?

No. I would go back to the first bidder and appraise them of the
situation, inviting them to raise their bid.
However, I would have made them aware that I would leave the field
open to other bids until they sign the contract. This is an
encouragement to the purchaser to encourage the agents and parasites
(sorry solicitors) to get a move on.

Since we have a system whereby nothing is binding or with penalty
until contracts are exchanged, any bid can be withdrawn up to that
point.

The vendor also has to consider each bid in the light of what they
understand of the bidder's ability to raise money and complete in the
required timescale.




If you feel otherwise then I would stay out of the property market, or
include a note in the details that you will take the first close
offer. People will be amazed by your naivete and it might help you
make a sale.

People are already aware that I am willing to take a close offer,
because that's what I tell 'em!

Fine. That's entirely reasonable. Their view of "close" may differ to
yours of course.




MM

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:08:49 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On 2 Sep 2004 04:43:13 -0700, (MBQ) wrote:

The vendor is taking advantage of the system to maximise his sale
price.

Exactly so! Cheating, in other words.

MM


Oh good grief.

Why don't you just give your house away.? Then you'll be able to
sleep with a clear conscience.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:51:32 +0100, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:

The message
from Mike Mitchell contains these words:


Please explain why vendors in Scotland largely pursue this
unfair system, and, as you ponder, think carefully on the "unfair"
bit.

If it was unfair to buyers, or distorted property prices, mortgage
lenders wouldn't risk making loans on such purchases.

If buyers are expected to get a valuation, what is wrong with the
concept whereby the vendor, i.e. the bloke with the goods to sell,
gets a valuation and prices the property accordingly?

He does.

I'll tell you
why: It's so the vendor can quote some ridiculously low price, thereby
seducing buyers into his web, banking on the fact that buyers will put
in silly (i.e. exaggerated) offers so that the chance of getting *far
more* than the property is actually worth is greatly increased.

Most buyers have a mortgage. Mortgagors value property before they
decide how much they will lend on it. That simple economic restriction
prevents properties from being sold for "more than they are worth". If
your misguided notion was correct, then half Scotland's property owners
would be in negative equity (owing more on the mortgage, than their
house would fetch if it was sold). Unlike England, negative equity is
almost unknown in Scotland.

Also, the system must be
crumbling at the edges because I am seeing secondhand properties
advertised at a fixed price, so obviously some people must agree with
how I see it.

Fixed-price on a 2nd hand property in Scotland is usually a sign that
the owner is desperate because either, the property is hard to sell, or,
he can't pay the mortgage and the lender is about to foreclose. Or, the
owner has already defaulted on the mortgage and it's being sold by the
lender at a fixed rate just to recover the loan.

Vendors in Scotland must be incredibly greedy or
incredibly frit that they dare not state a fixed asking price, just in
case their pound of flesh isn't two pounds.

Greed would be asking more for a house than buyers want to pay for it.
That appears to be your problem. Sooner or later, you'll understand that
buyers, not vendors, dictate property prices.

Yawn.

MM

Hey Mike

you don't seem to take too much attention to the posts of the people who
actually use the Scotish System do you.

You've now got this idea into your head and you wont let it go, try and open
your mind a little and accept some good information. A seller is also a
buyer and there is no desire for anyone to rip off anybody else. What OO
says is -pay me the market value, whatever that may be, you don't have to
trust an estate agent to set it, who I would rate as the greedy scum that
you apparently envisage all Scottish vendors to be, nor is it set at an
unrealistic/optimistic level by the "greedy" seller.

It strikes me that under the English system the price is set by the seller
and the estate agent, both of whom have a considerable interest in getting
as much as they possibley can, especially in todays market, and may very
well overinflate the price initially to see if they get some mug coming
along. THis number that they make up may just as easily have no relevance
to the valuation whihc is put on the property by an indepent party.

Get this clear it is not the vendors who run/abuse the Scottish system, the
OO price is set/suggested by those who present themselves as the "experts"
.... the estate agents. Personally I strongly disagree with OO set waaaay
under the true valuation, and reckon it should be within 10% of the true
value otherwaise the estate agent is just incompetent.

where the Scottish system does currently fall down is that you may pay for
multiple surveys, or be tempted to survey a property on at a low asking
price. This has been raised many times and there have been rumblings about
changing the way it works.

BUT the positive aspect is that the true valuation isn't set by the estate
agent OR the seller but by what should be a relatively independent surveyor.
It is this valuation that sets the benchmark, not someone trying to squeeze
a few extra quid out of the buyer by putting it on the market at an already
overinflated asking price.
At the end of the day it only goes to a sealed bid if there are 2 or more
interested parties, otherwise it is just a straight negotiation.

cheers

David

"David" wrote in message
...

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:51:32 +0100, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:

snip

Vendors in Scotland must be incredibly greedy or
incredibly frit that they dare not state a fixed asking price, just
in
case their pound of flesh isn't two pounds.

Greed would be asking more for a house than buyers want to pay for
it.
That appears to be your problem. Sooner or later, you'll understand
that
buyers, not vendors, dictate property prices.

Yawn.

MM

Hey Mike

you don't seem to take too much attention to the posts of the people who
actually use the Scotish System do you.

You've now got this idea into your head and you wont let it go, try and
open
your mind a little and accept some good information. A seller is also a
buyer and there is no desire for anyone to rip off anybody else. What OO
says is -pay me the market value, whatever that may be, you don't have to
trust an estate agent to set it, who I would rate as the greedy scum that
you apparently envisage all Scottish vendors to be, nor is it set at an
unrealistic/optimistic level by the "greedy" seller.

It strikes me that under the English system the price is set by the seller
and the estate agent, both of whom have a considerable interest in getting
as much as they possibley can, especially in todays market, and may very
well overinflate the price initially to see if they get some mug coming
along. THis number that they make up may just as easily have no relevance
to the valuation whihc is put on the property by an indepent party.

Get this clear it is not the vendors who run/abuse the Scottish system,
the
OO price is set/suggested by those who present themselves as the "experts"
... the estate agents. Personally I strongly disagree with OO set waaaay
under the true valuation, and reckon it should be within 10% of the true
value otherwaise the estate agent is just incompetent.

where the Scottish system does currently fall down is that you may pay for
multiple surveys, or be tempted to survey a property on at a low asking
price. This has been raised many times and there have been rumblings about
changing the way it works.

BUT the positive aspect is that the true valuation isn't set by the estate
agent OR the seller but by what should be a relatively independent
surveyor.
It is this valuation that sets the benchmark, not someone trying to
squeeze
a few extra quid out of the buyer by putting it on the market at an
already
overinflated asking price.
At the end of the day it only goes to a sealed bid if there are 2 or more
interested parties, otherwise it is just a straight negotiation.


Whilst I wouldn't disagree with what you'e said, David, I do think that
there's degree of amnesia present in a lot of discussion about the housing
market.

The housing market is just that - a market, nothing more, nothing less, save
perhaps that there's a lot more emotion attached to it than other markets.

During times of a rising market then vendors have the upper hand. They can
set a higher asking price because they know that another buyer will be along
soon.

However, this all changes when the market is falling, when the buyer will
have the upper hand - they know that they can walk away and will readily
find another house. It's only a matter of 12 or so years ago that this was
the case.

The one crucial difference between the English and Scottish systems appears
to be that at the point of the offer being accepted then there is a binding
agreement on both parties, which would probably eliminate
gazumping/gazundering, but of course to enter into such a binding agreement
then the buyer has to be in possession of all the facts, a source of
finance, etc etc.

As for valuations, well as a seller my only care about a valuation is that
it gives me an indication of what I should ask for the property. As a buyer
I don't care about that valuation - I've just got to make up my own mind as
to whether I'm willing to pay the price or not. The only valuation I care
about is whether the finance company is willing to lend me £X against a
property that they say is worth £Y.



--
Richard Sampson

mail me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

Mike Mitchell wrote in message . ..

Well, I fundamentrally disagree with all of that, but don't just take
my word for it, look at what The Scotsman reported only a couple of
weeks ago:

"SCOTLAND?S system of buying houses - once greatly envied - is in
serious crisis as a result of the property boom of the last few years.
With demand high and supply relatively tight in the main urban
markets, the gentlemanly sealed-bid system, policed by scrupulous
solicitors? agents, has gone by the board. Widespread accusations that
solicitors and estate agents are deliberately marketing properties far
below their true market value - to entice potential customers and thus
artificially generate competition - has prompted an investigation by
the independent watchdog, the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA). Such
false advertising wastes buyers? time and money. Nor do sellers always
gain: the incidence of "gazundering" (where a successful buyer reneges
on the original offer price) is on the increase."


All you have described is a problem with the people, not the system
per se. There will always be manipulation and rogues, whatever the
system. I'm sure you could search various newspaper archives and come
up with just as many reasons why the English system is bad.

I thought Gazundering wasn't possible in the Scottish system since you
have a contract once a bid is accepted. There must surely be some
penalty clause.

MBQ

Mike Mitchell wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:20:41 +0100, "sid" wrote:



: It's so the vendor can quote some ridiculously low price, thereby
seducing buyers into his web, banking on the fact that buyers will put
in silly (i.e. exaggerated) offers so that the chance of getting *far
more* than the property is actually worth is greatly increased.
MM

Dear me. We are all very naive and trusting are we not. Can I interest you
in my property. Offers over £1.

See the response I gave to Andy earlier, with a quote from The
Scotsman. It looks like even the Office of Fair Trading is concerned,
so you might just pause for a moment and ask why they are getting
involved if the system is as fair as you imply.

If you don't know what a house should be worth then you are not in a proper
position to make an offer. A two minute chat with another estate agent will
soon sort any confusion about a house price. In any event, you are not
compelled to make an offer on any property. Its a free country (I think)

Look, if properties in England and Wales are priced at a fixed asking
price, as they largely are, then buyers have the choice of choosing to
go for this or that property purely from comparing the particulars.

But how do you know the asking prices are fair? You look at the prices
actually achieved by similar properties in the same area. Which is
exactly how you determine how to bid in the Scottish system. Work out
what the property is worth to you (based in part on what others have
paid for similar properties and what you think it's potential future
value is) and bid based upon that.

That is competition working. Where is the competition in Scotland? If

The competition is in multiple potential purchasers bidding for the
same property.

we're all agreed that Scottish OO figures are just playing silly
buggers with the true valuation,

We're not.

it's as if everyone is driving blind
down a foggy motorway in the wrong direction.

I think you are the one trying to swim against the current.

MBQ

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:13:23 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

His point is valid, nonetheless. Ultimately, market forces decide
the price levels of transactions and the methods by which they are
done. Anything else, where there are artificial controls or
pseudo-altruistic principles is doomed to failure.
Free markets are governed by that most basic human trait of greed.
Long may it remain so.

Hmmm, I thought free markets were governed by competition, if you get
too greedy someone else will undercut you.

Also the law helps ensure a level playing field so that competition is
fair.

cheers,
Pete.

"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message
...
The message
from "RichardS" noone@invalid contains these words:

The one crucial difference between the English and Scottish systems
appears
to be that at the point of the offer being accepted then there is a
binding
agreement on both parties, which would probably eliminate
gazumping/gazundering, but of course to enter into such a binding
agreement
then the buyer has to be in possession of all the facts, a source of
finance, etc etc.

They have already had any survey done and arranged their finance,
before making the offer. The buyer's offer (and the seller's acceptance)
are both conditional. Only after a zillion questions have been thrashed
out and when both parties lawyers are satisfied, do they lock into the
legally binding agreement. IME, usually within a fortnight of the verbal
agreement. This is the same legal work that English solicitors sometimes
spin out over many months.

The conveyance completion date, when the property will change
ownership, is set some way ahead to give the buyer time to sell up his
own property. If he doesn't sell up in time, he's committed to
compensating the first seller with interest on the full price. In
practice, gaps are very small and most just take a bridging loan. There
are no property chains here, which is the other crucial advantage of the
Scottish system.

Janet


hmmm, the survey being carried out before making the offer would be some
cause for concern if I were a buyer - I could be throwing money away on
surveys for houses that I utimately do not bid successfully for. I know
that in Engerland our "glorious" govt are intent on compelling vendors to
have the survey carried out, but I'd then have real concerns that the
motivation would be wrong - the vendor after all wants as glossy a survey as
they can find...

From the sounds of it, the offer/acceptance of the bid appears to be the
first (and binding) stage of exchange of contracts - does the Scottish
system have a separate exchange stage?

And doesn't this both bump up the solicitor's costs of the vendor (they'll
be clocking up time bashine out issues with 1 to n potential bidders'
solicitors) and also lock out the purchasor from putting in bids for other
properties whilst this is all going on? (though I suppose you're able to
withdraw your bid right up till the point of formal acceptance?)


--
Richard Sampson

mail me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

Mike Mitchell wrote in message . ..
On 2 Sep 2004 04:43:13 -0700, (MBQ) wrote:

The vendor is taking advantage of the system to maximise his sale
price.

Exactly so! Cheating, in other words.

MM

I give up.

MBQ

"RichardS" wrote
| hmmm, the survey being carried out before making the offer would be
| some cause for concern if I were a buyer - I could be throwing money
| away on surveys for houses that I utimately do not bid successfully for.
| I know that in Engerland our "glorious" govt are intent on compelling
| vendors to have the survey carried out, but I'd then have real concerns
| that the motivation would be wrong - the vendor after all wants as
| glossy a survey as they can find...

There are moves towards a single survey scheme here, I think with the survey
being paid for by the 'lucky' purchaser.

| From the sounds of it, the offer/acceptance of the bid appears to be
| the first (and binding) stage of exchange of contracts - does the
| Scottish system have a separate exchange stage?

Not AFAIK. The conditional offer is met with a conditional acceptance, and
they bounce back and forth until all the conditions are satisfied, at which
stage the "missives are concluded". Usually within a couple of weeks.

| And doesn't this both bump up the solicitor's costs of the vendor
| (they'll be clocking up time bashing out issues with 1 to n potential
| bidders' solicitors)

No, because the seller (or his solicitor) is only dealing with one
purchaser, the one whose offer the seller wants to go ahead with. (And most
solicitors don't charge purchasers for a reasonable number of unsuccessful
offers provided they get a conveyance out of it eventually.)

| and also lock out the purchasor from putting in bids for other
| properties whilst this is all going on? (though I suppose you're
| able to withdraw your bid right up till the point of formal acceptance?)

The prospective purchasor is not able to withdraw the offer because the
offer will say "this offer remains open for acceptance until ...".
(Obviously if it's not accepted by then, then it lapses.) Typically, if the
closing date is set for noon, the seller will choose which offer to accept
(it will usually be the highest after all) almost immediately, and a
qualified acceptance will be back in the hands of the purchasor's solicitor
later that day.

Owain

In message , Mike Mitchell
writes
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:45:50 +0100, Richard Faulkner
wrote:

In message , Mike Mitchell
writes
What do you intend to do if someone offers to buy your English house
at the asking price, and a week later someone else offers you a thousand
more, cash purchase?

I refuse it, simple as that. You obviously have no concept of an
Englishman's word is his bond. Avarice is a deadly sin, you know.

What are you going to do when your buyer comes back somewhat late in the
deal and revises his/her offer downwards?

Then the buyer is the one who has reneged on the deal, not me. They
have effectively terminated their offer, thus permitting me to open up
the market again.


So you start again with another buyer, who subsequently reneges on the
deal aswell, (believe me, it happens time and time again), - how long do
you hold fast before selling and getting on with your life?

It is all very well taking the moral high road in relation to sellers
"ripping off" buyers but, in my time as an agent, I saw many many more
buyers trying to rip off sellers than the other way round.

Maybe that is because there is no formal legal agreement until
exchange. If the buyer had to find 10% deposit at the time of the
offer, then buyers would be a lot more circumspect and the time
wasters would stay home.


Of course it is, and of course they would. However, there are many
checks a buyer should make before committing legally, so it is rare for
a buyer to be prepared to do that, thus allowing the time for mind
changing, or shenanigans.

It is just a function of the way we sell houses in this country.

So? Are we supposed to live with the system like it is for the rest of
time?

No, and yes g Until someone comes up with a better way which is
accepted as "how it is done", or the law changes to force the issue.

But what would be a better system?


In Scotland, nobody is forced to bid for a house, and they only have to
bid what they want - one mans meat and all that.

Of course, no one is forced to do anything, but I maintain that one
should know the price the vendor is willing to accept so that the
buyer knows where he stands and can fairly compare similar properties


This is what generally happens in England, and it is still far from
perfect, or even good.

In your various posts, are you suggesting that there is one particular
value for any particular house? If so, who polices it?

Of course I am not! You're now trying to invent scenarios in order to
bolster your argument, which must therefore be pretty weak.

No I am not! You proposed the scenario which suggests that sellers
should have a price which is close to the "value" of the property - I am
merely asking how the "value" should be determined?

I dont really have an argument which I am trying to support - I have
questions regarding an argument which you are trying to support.


Or are you saying that there is a price band for every house - if so,
who decides, and where do you draw the line?

Ditto.


Ditto g

Lets say I genuinely believe, (perhaps naively), that my house is worth
£100,000, and I set a price of Offers Over £90,000. If someone offers me
£200,000, am I to refuse it and tell them that I cannot take more than
say, £110,000?

If you have already agreed with another buyer to accept his offer
nearer your £100K valuation, then yes, you should refuse it if you
want to sleep at night with a clear conscience. That first buyer who
is willing to pay YOUR price, not someone else's valuation, was doing
so in the spirit of fair play and a level playing field, and if you
renege on the deal, ask yourself, who has the moral high ground.


Firstly, where did I say that I had agreed to sell at £100K? I was
considering the Scottish system which you find fundamentally flawed, and
I had "asked" for Offers Over £90K. I then received several offers, one
of which was £200K, maybe some others were near £200K. In your scenario,
I shouldnt take £200K, and I shouldnt take too much over my £90K.

Secondly - You cannot tell me that if someone genuinely offered you
£300,000 for your house, and it was serious, and they had the money, you
would refuse? Or would you? (I know it is unlikely to happen, but
imagine what you would do if it did). You havent agreed another offer in
this scenario.

Any joy with your house?

--
Richard Faulkner

In message , Mike Mitchell
writes
On 2 Sep 2004 04:43:13 -0700, (MBQ) wrote:

The vendor is taking advantage of the system to maximise his sale
price.

Exactly so! Cheating, in other words.

MM


So almost everybody is a cheat??

Given my experience of the housing business, almost every seller wants
to maximise their sale price, and almost every buyer wants to minimise
their purchase price, and both take advantage of the system to do so.

--
Richard Faulkner

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 14:17:50 +0100, "RichardS" noone@invalid wrote:

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:45:50 +0100, Richard Faulkner
wrote:

snip
It is all very well taking the moral high road in relation to sellers
"ripping off" buyers but, in my time as an agent, I saw many many more
buyers trying to rip off sellers than the other way round.

Maybe that is because there is no formal legal agreement until
exchange. If the buyer had to find 10% deposit at the time of the
offer, then buyers would be a lot more circumspect and the time
wasters would stay home.

snip

I just don't get this.

That's a shame!

You're currently marketing your house and apparently dismayed at the lack of
offers, yet you would propose a system whereby a potential buyer would have
to cough up £20k in ready cash at the point of making an offer?

Yes. It would sort the market out. I am an altruistic person and while
such a change might not benefit some (including me in my own
particular predicament) I am sure that it would benefit the market
overall. Moreover, the effect would probably be a cooling of the
market, which would be a good thing as Britons have far too high a
personal debt as it is.

Well, it's surely one way to eliminate time-wasters, but you're also going
to eliminate an awful lot of perfectly serious and good buyers in one fell
swoop.

Please let me know when you come across any perfectly serious and good
buyers, because I'd like to see one! Just the one!

What surity should the buyer have in case you decide to pull out of the sale
(for whatever reason)?

Er, a contract, perhaps?

Would you be required to stump up £20k to be held in
escrow until the transaction is completed?

The deposit from the buyer would be held in escrow by the solicitor or
conveyancer handling the sale.

MM

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:18:23 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:02:42 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:45:50 +0100, Richard Faulkner
wrote:


Lets say I genuinely believe, (perhaps naively), that my house is worth
£100,000, and I set a price of Offers Over £90,000. If someone offers me
£200,000, am I to refuse it and tell them that I cannot take more than
say, £110,000?

If you have already agreed with another buyer to accept his offer
nearer your £100K valuation, then yes, you should refuse it if you
want to sleep at night with a clear conscience. That first buyer who
is willing to pay YOUR price, not someone else's valuation, was doing
so in the spirit of fair play and a level playing field, and if you
renege on the deal, ask yourself, who has the moral high ground.

What a lot of nonsense.

Oh, well. Bye, then!

MM

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:46:18 +0100, Richard Faulkner
wrote:

In message , Mike Mitchell
writes
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:45:50 +0100, Richard Faulkner
wrote:

In message , Mike Mitchell
writes
What do you intend to do if someone offers to buy your English house
at the asking price, and a week later someone else offers you a thousand
more, cash purchase?

I refuse it, simple as that. You obviously have no concept of an
Englishman's word is his bond. Avarice is a deadly sin, you know.

What are you going to do when your buyer comes back somewhat late in the
deal and revises his/her offer downwards?

Then the buyer is the one who has reneged on the deal, not me. They
have effectively terminated their offer, thus permitting me to open up
the market again.


So you start again with another buyer,

'Fraid so! The first buyer has welshed on the deal as far as I'm
concerned. Were I to accept his revised (lower) offer, who's to say he
won't come back a week or two later and try it on again?

who subsequently reneges on the
deal aswell, (believe me, it happens time and time again), - how long do
you hold fast before selling and getting on with your life?

Until I find *the* buyer who keeps to the letter of the agreement to
purchase (I assume a buyer has to put his moniker on *some*thing to
assert his genuineness).

It is all very well taking the moral high road in relation to sellers
"ripping off" buyers but, in my time as an agent, I saw many many more
buyers trying to rip off sellers than the other way round.

Maybe that is because there is no formal legal agreement until
exchange. If the buyer had to find 10% deposit at the time of the
offer, then buyers would be a lot more circumspect and the time
wasters would stay home.


Of course it is, and of course they would. However, there are many
checks a buyer should make before committing legally, so it is rare for
a buyer to be prepared to do that, thus allowing the time for mind
changing, or shenanigans.

Like I said, it would sort out the time wasters.

It is just a function of the way we sell houses in this country.

So? Are we supposed to live with the system like it is for the rest of
time?

No, and yes g Until someone comes up with a better way which is
accepted as "how it is done", or the law changes to force the issue.

But what would be a better system?

Keep the system as it is, i.e. an asking price is stated, not an
Offers Over price. But add a legal commitment to purchase, exactly as
happens at auction, by demanding a deposit from the buyer when an
offer is made.

In Scotland, nobody is forced to bid for a house, and they only have to
bid what they want - one mans meat and all that.

Of course, no one is forced to do anything, but I maintain that one
should know the price the vendor is willing to accept so that the
buyer knows where he stands and can fairly compare similar properties


This is what generally happens in England, and it is still far from
perfect, or even good.

Better than the Scottish system, however.

In your various posts, are you suggesting that there is one particular
value for any particular house? If so, who polices it?

Of course I am not! You're now trying to invent scenarios in order to
bolster your argument, which must therefore be pretty weak.

No I am not! You proposed the scenario which suggests that sellers
should have a price which is close to the "value" of the property - I am
merely asking how the "value" should be determined?

But you were the one who suggested the idea of having some external
body to police, or dictate, a price! No, it is entirely up to the
vendor *what* price he asks for at the end of the day, but I maintain
that the price stated must be the actual price the vendor wants. This
is not rocket science! If I stuck an ad in the paper to sell a piano,
saying "offers accepted", and you came by and made an offer and I
said, no, sorry, it's not high enough, bye! And you were not allowed
to make a higher offer, well, you'd feel pretty put out, wouldn't you!

I dont really have an argument which I am trying to support - I have
questions regarding an argument which you are trying to support.


Or are you saying that there is a price band for every house - if so,
who decides, and where do you draw the line?

Ditto.


Ditto g

Lets say I genuinely believe, (perhaps naively), that my house is worth
£100,000, and I set a price of Offers Over £90,000. If someone offers me
£200,000, am I to refuse it and tell them that I cannot take more than
say, £110,000?

If you have already agreed with another buyer to accept his offer
nearer your £100K valuation, then yes, you should refuse it if you
want to sleep at night with a clear conscience. That first buyer who
is willing to pay YOUR price, not someone else's valuation, was doing
so in the spirit of fair play and a level playing field, and if you
renege on the deal, ask yourself, who has the moral high ground.


Firstly, where did I say that I had agreed to sell at £100K? I was
considering the Scottish system which you find fundamentally flawed, and
I had "asked" for Offers Over £90K. I then received several offers, one
of which was £200K, maybe some others were near £200K. In your scenario,
I shouldnt take £200K, and I shouldnt take too much over my £90K.

Secondly - You cannot tell me that if someone genuinely offered you
£300,000 for your house, and it was serious, and they had the money, you
would refuse? Or would you? (I know it is unlikely to happen, but
imagine what you would do if it did). You havent agreed another offer in
this scenario.

Well if I haven't agreed another offer, then there isn't a problem, is
there! Also, in terms of "unlikely to happen", this scenario is about
as likely as my finding fairies at the bottom of my garden.

Any joy with your house?

Are you taking the mick?

Actually, I had a lady around this morning, who seem very interested.
But I expect she has by now been sucked up into the sky by the Giant
Vortex, never to be seen or heard of again. Such a shame.

MM

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:25:28 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:04:45 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:


Nobody actually said that you you had *accepted* the first offer.
Had you done so, then I agree, it is important to be of your word.
If you hadn't, and wanted to wait for other offers, it would be
completely reasonable to do so, even if they are above your asking
price.

But if I had accepted the first offer, then you agree with me that it
is wrong to then accept a higher offer, yes?

No. I would go back to the first bidder and appraise them of the
situation, inviting them to raise their bid.

Sorry, no can do. That's not how we do things here, I'm afraid. You're
asking me to cheat the first, committed buyer out of his future home,
for heck's sake!

However, I would have made them aware that I would leave the field
open to other bids until they sign the contract. This is an
encouragement to the purchaser to encourage the agents and parasites
(sorry solicitors) to get a move on.

I don't know why you are so down on solicitors, as they are only doing
a job and not charging a great deal in relation to the value of the
property. Mine will be charging a fixed price (hee hee!) of £300 plus
VAT.

Since we have a system whereby nothing is binding or with penalty
until contracts are exchanged, any bid can be withdrawn up to that
point.

Legally it can. But there are some laws of the jungle that no
legislation can override or excuse. That's why we shake hands on a
deal, or promise to pay the bearer, or agree to buy a property.

The vendor also has to consider each bid in the light of what they
understand of the bidder's ability to raise money and complete in the
required timescale.

The vendor must do this *before* accepting the offer. Otherwise it's
no wonder if the buyer then turns out to be a time waster. I believe
there are Ways and Means to establish the bona fides of a genuine
offer.


If you feel otherwise then I would stay out of the property market, or
include a note in the details that you will take the first close
offer. People will be amazed by your naivete and it might help you
make a sale.

People are already aware that I am willing to take a close offer,
because that's what I tell 'em!

Fine. That's entirely reasonable. Their view of "close" may differ to
yours of course.

One offer I had was 20 grand below the asking price. That ain't close!

MM

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 15:53:35 +0100, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:

The message
from Mike Mitchell contains these words:

See the response I gave to Andy earlier, with a quote from The
Scotsman. It looks like even the Office of Fair Trading is concerned,
so you might just pause for a moment and ask why they are getting
involved if the system is as fair as you imply.


The article you quoted did NOT say that the OFT is concerned, and did
NOT say that the OFT is getting involved.

Er, what do you think "Ultimately, of course, the Office of Fair
Trading could step in and take legal action against miscreants."
means? Or do you suppose The Scotsman is just making it up?

MM

On 2 Sep 2004 08:55:32 -0700, (MBQ) wrote:

The competition is in multiple potential purchasers bidding for the
same property.

That's a lottery, not competition.

we're all agreed that Scottish OO figures are just playing silly
buggers with the true valuation,

We're not.

Yes, we are. Even The Scotsman said so. Here is another quote from
that article: "One solution would be to adopt the English system of
open bidding, which at least has the advantage of every potential
buyer seeing the market price they have to beat."

See? Other people see it the way I do.

it's as if everyone is driving blind
down a foggy motorway in the wrong direction.

I think you are the one trying to swim against the current.

Salmon do it all the time.

MM

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:46:21 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:08:49 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On 2 Sep 2004 04:43:13 -0700, (MBQ) wrote:

The vendor is taking advantage of the system to maximise his sale
price.

Exactly so! Cheating, in other words.

MM


Oh good grief.

Why don't you just give your house away.? Then you'll be able to
sleep with a clear conscience.

Here is the dictionary meaning of cheat, cheating, etc:

1. To deceive by trickery; swindle: cheated customers by overcharging
them for purchases.
2. To deprive by trickery; defraud: cheated them of their land.
3. To mislead; fool: illusions that cheat the eye.

Tell me which bit you don't understand and I'll try to explain it.

MM

In message , Mike Mitchell
writes
Fine. That's entirely reasonable. Their view of "close" may differ to
yours of course.

One offer I had was 20 grand below the asking price. That ain't close!

Was that £20K below the current asking price? Or a previous one?

Is it possible that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it
might be the "value" in the current market. It's only 10% below your
asking price.



--
Richard Faulkner

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:55:24 +0100, Richard Faulkner
wrote:

In message , Mike Mitchell
writes
On 2 Sep 2004 04:43:13 -0700, (MBQ) wrote:

The vendor is taking advantage of the system to maximise his sale
price.

Exactly so! Cheating, in other words.

MM


So almost everybody is a cheat??

Seems like it!

Given my experience of the housing business, almost every seller wants
to maximise their sale price, and almost every buyer wants to minimise
their purchase price, and both take advantage of the system to do so.

How does that happen that the seller under the English system is
taking advantage? Note that the title of this thread is "Scottish
property system" and that is the one you ought to be concerned about.
Although the English system is far from ideal, at least buers can see
what the prices are up front and can compete fairly. It's stability I
want to see, not gazumping/gazundering as a national pastime because
people think it's a clever thing to do in a dog-eat-dog world.

MM

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 14:20:43 +0100, "David"
wrote:

You can make somebody an offer for anything, all they can do is refuse, the
RRP is after all only a recommendation.

Yes, but under the Scottish sealed bids system, they refuse your offer
and, get this, they won't allow you to make another! It's the silly
season 24/7/365 over the border...

MM

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:12:00 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:25:28 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:04:45 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:


Nobody actually said that you you had *accepted* the first offer.
Had you done so, then I agree, it is important to be of your word.
If you hadn't, and wanted to wait for other offers, it would be
completely reasonable to do so, even if they are above your asking
price.

But if I had accepted the first offer, then you agree with me that it
is wrong to then accept a higher offer, yes?

No. I would go back to the first bidder and appraise them of the
situation, inviting them to raise their bid.

Sorry, no can do. That's not how we do things here, I'm afraid. You're
asking me to cheat the first, committed buyer out of his future home,
for heck's sake!


He isn't committed to any degree at all until exchange of contract so
no cheating is involved. I already made the point that he can be
appraised of the situation and invited to rebid. That's perfectly
reasonable. The first potential buyer has the option to push his
solicitor along and get a contract in place pretty quickly, so the
time window can be short.


However, I would have made them aware that I would leave the field
open to other bids until they sign the contract. This is an
encouragement to the purchaser to encourage the agents and parasites
(sorry solicitors) to get a move on.

I don't know why you are so down on solicitors, as they are only doing
a job and not charging a great deal in relation to the value of the
property. Mine will be charging a fixed price (hee hee!) of £300 plus
VAT.

In terms of doing a good job and more to the point, expeditiously,
they do not rank highly at all. The notion of urgency is not in
their vocabulary.




Since we have a system whereby nothing is binding or with penalty
until contracts are exchanged, any bid can be withdrawn up to that
point.

Legally it can. But there are some laws of the jungle that no
legislation can override or excuse. That's why we shake hands on a
deal, or promise to pay the bearer, or agree to buy a property.

You have no idea whether the buyer is genuine in his offer or whether
other circumstances will overtake him and prevent him completing the
offer - even with the best will in the world.
I know somebody who was buying and selling and after they had made an
offer their house burned down.

This is why we have written legal procedures to cover transfer of
property. "Laws of the jungle" in this respect really don't help.
If you feel you want to be very honourable and do deals on a
handshake, that's fine, but it's foolish, because you can't control
all the circumstances on your side and certainly not those of the
other party. It is therefore much better to make the buying and
selling an arm's length arrangement and go no further on commitments
than implied by the legal process. This may sound cold, but it's
honest and everybody knows where they stand. In the long run, people
won't get hurt either.




The vendor also has to consider each bid in the light of what they
understand of the bidder's ability to raise money and complete in the
required timescale.

The vendor must do this *before* accepting the offer. Otherwise it's
no wonder if the buyer then turns out to be a time waster. I believe
there are Ways and Means to establish the bona fides of a genuine
offer.

This is impractical. There can be any number of reasons why a buyer
(even a well intentioned one) pulls out. In a rising market, you
may be able to ask for various credentials. In a falling one, you'll
**** the buyers off. In your current situation, I wouldn't even
think about it.





If you feel otherwise then I would stay out of the property market, or
include a note in the details that you will take the first close
offer. People will be amazed by your naivete and it might help you
make a sale.

People are already aware that I am willing to take a close offer,
because that's what I tell 'em!

Fine. That's entirely reasonable. Their view of "close" may differ to
yours of course.

One offer I had was 20 grand below the asking price. That ain't close!

It might be. That may represent what that person feels is a fair
value for your property. You won't know until you get some
others.

It is possible that the house was put on the market for a way inflated
price by the agents in the first place, on the offchance that a bite
will happen. Have you compared with other nearby properties?


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:20:53 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:



it's as if everyone is driving blind
down a foggy motorway in the wrong direction.

I think you are the one trying to swim against the current.

Salmon do it all the the time.

.... and look what happens to them in the end when they get there.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl