Does it kick in 1 (one) millimetre over the border? What if a property
straddles the border?

MM

"Mike Mitchell" wrote
| Does it kick in 1 (one) millimetre over the border?

Yes, if the border can be established to the mm.

| What if a property straddles the border?

Effectively there would be two separate sales, in two separate
jurisdictions, with two separate land registries. There would after all be
two separate sets of council tax to pay.

I think.

Owain

Mike Mitchell wrote:

Does it kick in 1 (one) millimetre over the border? What if a property
straddles the border?

MM
Looking for something else I see that the legal beagles are looking into
the Scottish system. I'd always thought that it was superior to our
English one, but it seems that estate agents have started to utilise a
flaw in it to up house prices. They simply advertise the house as
offers over £X when the property is worth at least £2X, there is such a
rush for the property that people end up paying £2X+.

--
Please do not reply by Email, as all
emails to this address are automatically deleted.

| Does it kick in 1 (one) millimetre over the border?

Yes, if the border can be established to the mm.

How would you manage to do that then?

Don't be silly. properties are either registered as Scottish or English.
Nobody gets 2 sets of votes, two different postal deliveries, rubbish
collections etc.


| What if a property straddles the border?

Effectively there would be two separate sales, in two separate
jurisdictions, with two separate land registries. There would after all be
two separate sets of council tax to pay.

I think.

Don't be silly (again)





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Looking for something else I see that the legal beagles are looking into
the Scottish system. I'd always thought that it was superior to our
English one, but it seems that estate agents have started to utilise a
flaw in it to up house prices. They simply advertise the house as
offers over £X when the property is worth at least £2X, there is such a
rush for the property that people end up paying £2X+.

This has been the case in Scotland for many years. Like any other house
purchase its up to the potential buyer to figure out what the property is
worth to him/her.

One problem being addressed is the multiple survey. The system is such that
the survey must be made prior to a formal offer being made. This can mean 10
or more surveys being made on the same property by the various interested
parties (often by the same firm) This can be a costly business if offers
are unsuccessful on a succession of properties by an over optimistic bidder.

Seems that a survey is undertaken by the seller and made available to the
any potential buyers.
This has some drawbacks but the trial is still under way (AFAIK)

I still think that the system of making up your mind time and making a
legally binding offer stops most of the abuses of the English system - can't
sell my own house etc and the various dodges employed by sellers and buyers
to manipulate the price up or down.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

sid wrote:

Broadback had written:
Looking for something else I see that the legal beagles are looking into
the Scottish system. I'd always thought that it was superior to our
English one, but it seems that estate agents have started to utilise a
flaw in it to up house prices. They simply advertise the house as
offers over £X when the property is worth at least £2X, there is such a
rush for the property that people end up paying £2X+.

The Scottish bidding system is "blind" so there's no way to get into a
direct counter-bidding war. What the artificially low "offers-over"
price does is to greatly increase everyone's uncertainty about how much
to bid, in the hope that the high bids will go higher still.

In rural areas the overbid factor is nothing like as high as 2, but the
infection is spreading...

As sid says:
its up to the potential buyer to figure out what the property is worth
to him/her.

If you've set your sights on one particular property, you'll want to be
sure that yours is the highest bid, so you'll almost certainly have to
offer more than you feel it's "really" worth. In practice, it's much
more about deciding what your spending limit is, and sticking to it.

I still think that the system of making up your mind time and making a
legally binding offer stops most of the abuses of the English system

To clarify that: once the vendor has decided to accept someone's offer -
including the price, but also any other conditions that have been
mutually agreed - it then becomes a legally binding contract to sell and
to buy.

That's the good part of the Scottish system; the less good part is the
blind bidding process by which you get there.


--
Ian White

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:34:03 +0100, "sid" wrote:

I still think that the system of making up your mind time and making a
legally binding offer stops most of the abuses of the English system - can't
sell my own house etc and the various dodges employed by sellers and buyers
to manipulate the price up or down.

Yes, make it legally binding (or lose the 10% deposit), but cease this
ridiculous "offers over" scam. I dabbled with RightMove again today,
whilst waiting for my real RM email updates to arrive for Lincs etc,
and I played "what ifs" on a number of locations, Ayrshire being one
of them. I saw a couple of fantastic, huge properties, and the OO
price was £149,950 for one and around £155K for the other. Houses that
would cost £400K in Bucks at least. Now, I reckon that both these
prices, even for Ayrshire where property is obviously cheaper, are
just come-ons to temp prospective buyers to at least have a look. I
think the £149K house would probably go for around £180 - 190K, but I
have no idea.

I believe that when it comes to the biggest asset most of us will ever
acquire, there is no room for funny business and vendors should state
the price up front as in England and Wales. As for having to have
surveys done on the same house, what if the same surveyor is hired by
three or four different buyers? I'll bet he has invested in a very
expensive photocopier! Talk about money for old rope.

MM

"sid" wrote
| | Does it kick in 1 (one) millimetre over the border?
| Yes, if the border can be established to the mm.
| How would you manage to do that then?

In the same way as you establish property boundaries in any other
circumstance. The mm might be slightly extreme in practice, but the
principle is valid in law.

| Don't be silly. properties are either registered as Scottish or
| English. Nobody gets 2 sets of votes, two different postal
| deliveries, rubbish collections etc.

You can have as many votes as you have entries on the electoral register (it
is illegal to use more than one in the same election; i.e. if you have a 2nd
home you can vote in two different local council elections but you cannot
vote twice in a general or European election).

As for postal deliveries and rubbish collections, that depends on how the
relevant authorities organise their routes. What do you think happens when
the boundary between council areas runs down the middle of the road.

| | What if a property straddles the border?
| Effectively there would be two separate sales, in two
| separate jurisdictions, with two separate land registries.
| There would after all be two separate sets of council tax
| to pay.
| Don't be silly (again)

So what if someone buys adjoining properties, one in England and one in
Scotland, and merges them, or builds across the border? The international
boundary doesn't move because someone puts a shed over it.

I'm sure I've read of a pub where one end of the bar is in a different
licensing authority than the other, and it is/was established on the
NI/Irish border to build agricultural sheds spanning the border to
facilitate smuggling.

Owain

"Mike Mitchell" wrote
| I believe that when it comes to the biggest asset most of us
| will ever acquire, there is no room for funny business and
| vendors should state the price up front as in England and
| Wales.

Where vendors consider themselves lucky if they get 'full asking price' and
everyone sits around worrying about being gazumped the day before they move
out/in.

Owain

In article , owain41276
@stirlingcity.co.uk says...

So what if someone buys adjoining properties, one in England and one in
Scotland, and merges them, or builds across the border? The international
boundary doesn't move because someone puts a shed over it.

Council borders can, though. When the Braehead shopping centre opened,
it lay partly in Glasgow and partly in Renfrewshire - the Sainsbury's
store straddled the border, so they had to get off-licences from both
licensing boards. They've since shifted the border so the whole centre
is in Glasgow.

There are many properties (generally larger farms/estates) which
straddle county boundaries within Scotland, and those have to be
registered separately in each registration county. I suspect there will
be some which cross the English border, and the same principle will
apply.

David

Owain wrote:

I'm sure I've read of a pub where one end of the bar is in a different
licensing authority than the other,

There was one on the Leith-Edinburgh border. Makes no difference now, of
course, as Leith has become part of Edinburgh.

Sheila

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:08:57 +0100, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:

The message
from Mike Mitchell contains these words:


I believe that when it comes to the biggest asset most of us will ever
acquire, there is no room for funny business and vendors should state
the price up front as in England and Wales.

The Scottish system is an auction. When property in England and Wales
is sold at auction, the price starts at a reserve and goes upwards, just
the same.

In an auction you get to see what others are bidding and can pull out
or go on accordingly. In the Scottish sealed bids system you are
driving blind all the way. It is a ridiculous system.

There are also fixed price property sales in Scotland; it's used for
newbuilds, and sometimes for property which didn't attract any auction
bidders.

Yes, I saw some fixed price properties on RightMove. Perhaps even the
Scots are getting wise to their own grossly iniquitous system.

MM

In message , Mike Mitchell
writes
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:34:03 +0100, "sid" wrote:

I still think that the system of making up your mind time and making a
legally binding offer stops most of the abuses of the English system - can't
sell my own house etc and the various dodges employed by sellers and buyers
to manipulate the price up or down.

Yes, make it legally binding (or lose the 10% deposit), but cease this
ridiculous "offers over" scam. I dabbled with RightMove again today,
whilst waiting for my real RM email updates to arrive for Lincs etc,
and I played "what ifs" on a number of locations, Ayrshire being one
of them. I saw a couple of fantastic, huge properties, and the OO
price was £149,950 for one and around £155K for the other. Houses that
would cost £400K in Bucks at least. Now, I reckon that both these
prices, even for Ayrshire where property is obviously cheaper, are
just come-ons to temp prospective buyers to at least have a look. I
think the £149K house would probably go for around £180 - 190K, but I
have no idea.

I believe that when it comes to the biggest asset most of us will ever
acquire, there is no room for funny business and vendors should state
the price up front as in England and Wales. As for having to have
surveys done on the same house, what if the same surveyor is hired by
three or four different buyers? I'll bet he has invested in a very
expensive photocopier! Talk about money for old rope.

MM

Mike,

you really seem to have been through it!

Offers over, and Guide prices, are nothing new and have been used in
england aswell as scotland for years. Auctions are prime examples,
although the bidding is not blind.

In England, I often invited interested parties to make their "Best &
Final Offers In Writing" by a particular deadline and, whilst never
achieving 2x the asking price, there were often some fascinating high
offers.

I have also set Guide prices particularly low where sellers had to sell
very fast - this usually resulted in many fast offers around the Guide
price with the opportunity to bid the price up to its best at the time.
I must stress that it was always the buyers that bid the price up, and
not the seller.

Why not try it - Guide Price £170,000 or Offers Over £170,000. Dont
forget, whatever offer you get, if you dont like it, you dont have to
take it.

As for surveyors, in my 17 years in the business, I can probably count
on 1 hand the number of times the same surveyor was instructed by 2 or
more buyers.



--
Richard Faulkner

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 00:59:15 +0100, Richard Faulkner
wrote:

Why not try it - Guide Price £170,000 or Offers Over £170,000. Dont
forget, whatever offer you get, if you dont like it, you dont have to
take it.

It's an idea that I haven't thought of. I had indeed thought of
auctioning it, or running a competition, but not to state an
artificially low price to tempt buyers. Such a ploy is not widely used
in England, however, and I think a lot of buyers would steer clear in
the belief that it is just a ramshackle old dosser's hut that the
agent wants to shift quickly.

Nevertheless, your suggestion has merit and I'll certainly consider it
if Connells' six-week challenge proves unsuccessful.

How about modifying the wording: "Only Cash Offers Over £170,000
Considered"? That would help filter out the time-wasters.

MM

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:08:57 +0100, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:

The message
from Mike Mitchell contains these words:


I believe that when it comes to the biggest asset most of us will ever
acquire, there is no room for funny business and vendors should state
the price up front as in England and Wales.

The Scottish system is an auction. When property in England and Wales
is sold at auction, the price starts at a reserve and goes upwards, just
the same.

In an auction you get to see what others are bidding and can pull out
or go on accordingly. In the Scottish sealed bids system you are
driving blind all the way. It is a ridiculous system.

There are also fixed price property sales in Scotland; it's used for
newbuilds, and sometimes for property which didn't attract any auction
bidders.

Yes, I saw some fixed price properties on RightMove. Perhaps even the
Scots are getting wise to their own grossly iniquitous system.

MM

The system could be in for a bit of a shake up hopefully

There is currently a case with the advertising standards authority, where
some propery in teh borders was on at OO £60k or something but was valued by
a surveyor at £120k, as a result one interested party is taking the estate
agents to the ASA, on the grounds that the offer price was whollly
misleading.

ahh here's an article on the case in question
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/22301.html

cheers

David

In an auction you get to see what others are bidding and can pull out
or go on accordingly. In the Scottish sealed bids system you are
driving blind all the way. It is a ridiculous system.

Its not a ridiculous system. You bid what you can afford based on a survey
and other professional advice A mortgage lined up and hopefully aware of all
other costs associated with buying a property.

In some cases a fax is sent immediately prior to the closing time. Its a
system that works well enough

Knowing previous bids may or may not be helpful. It can certainly lead to
corruption by estate agents/buyers/sellers depending on the state of the
housing market.

The system could be in for a bit of a shake up hopefully

There is currently a case with the advertising standards authority, where
some propery in teh borders was on at OO £60k or something but was valued
by
a surveyor at £120k, as a result one interested party is taking the
estate
agents to the ASA, on the grounds that the offer price was whollly
misleading.

ahh here's an article on the case in question
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/22301.html


Interesting - As the advert was for offers over, I think most people would
assume a rat at a low price like that.
Ludicrous indignation is a term I would use for the complainant

..






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 17:08:14 +0100, "David"
wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:08:57 +0100, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:

The message
from Mike Mitchell contains these words:


I believe that when it comes to the biggest asset most of us will ever
acquire, there is no room for funny business and vendors should state
the price up front as in England and Wales.

The Scottish system is an auction. When property in England and Wales
is sold at auction, the price starts at a reserve and goes upwards, just
the same.

In an auction you get to see what others are bidding and can pull out
or go on accordingly. In the Scottish sealed bids system you are
driving blind all the way. It is a ridiculous system.

There are also fixed price property sales in Scotland; it's used for
newbuilds, and sometimes for property which didn't attract any auction
bidders.

Yes, I saw some fixed price properties on RightMove. Perhaps even the
Scots are getting wise to their own grossly iniquitous system.

MM

The system could be in for a bit of a shake up hopefully

There is currently a case with the advertising standards authority, where
some propery in teh borders was on at OO £60k or something but was valued by
a surveyor at £120k, as a result one interested party is taking the estate
agents to the ASA, on the grounds that the offer price was whollly
misleading.

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.
Therefore, the OO price has absolutely no meaning at all, in my view.
Vendors might just as well ask for OO one pound and say they're
testing the market. Scams like this should be knocked on the head in
case the concept should spread to England. I have nothing against a
bidding war, as in an auction, where everyone sees up front what
others are prepared to pay. But all this secrecy is underhand, unfair
and is ripping buyers off as they pay over the odds. Sure, proponents
will argue that the house is worth what people are prepared to pay,
but if a buyer pays £20,000 more, say, than the expected price (in the
vendor's mind) to my mind that buyer has been ripped of, pure and
simple. If on the other hand he is paying £20,000 more because he
knows that someone else has offered £18,000 more, fair enough. That is
competition. But how can it be a competition if all bids are secret?
It ain't a competition, it's a lottery! And one condoned by the
Scottish Establisment, though for what purpose, I have no idea other
than to keep the status quo, because that's how they've always done
it.

MM

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:26:21 +0100, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:

The message
from Mike Mitchell contains these words:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:08:57 +0100, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:

The message
from Mike Mitchell contains these words:


I believe that when it comes to the biggest asset most of us will ever
acquire, there is no room for funny business and vendors should state
the price up front as in England and Wales.

The Scottish system is an auction. When property in England and Wales
is sold at auction, the price starts at a reserve and goes upwards, just
the same.

In an auction you get to see what others are bidding and can pull out
or go on accordingly. In the Scottish sealed bids system you are
driving blind all the way. It is a ridiculous system.

It's an auction where you only make one bid, which is what the
property isn worth to you. You can't get carried away and bid more than
you intended.

Not an argument that sways me. If adults with some degree of common
sense bid more than they intended, then they are crazy. But when the
system is blind and mired in secrecy, it's the system that is crazy.
And what kind of auction system other than this sealed bid system for
Scottish property would last more than a second if, say, you went to
an auction room to buy an antique and you only had one bid available
to you?

There must be thousands of Scots who, after moving in, hear through
the grapevine that Mr X would have willingly accepted a much lower
offer. In other words, Mr X has ripped off the buyer.

There are also fixed price property sales in Scotland; it's used for
newbuilds, and sometimes for property which didn't attract any auction
bidders.

Yes, I saw some fixed price properties on RightMove. Perhaps even the
Scots are getting wise to their own grossly iniquitous system.

The Scots much prefer their own system; it's fast, secure and there's
no gazumping or last-minute bullying. You won't want to hear this, but I
bought this place in a week, and sold the previous one in a fortnight.
Surveyors, lawyers and mortgage lenders all work at that speed.

So, surveyors, lawyers and mortgage lenders need scams like this to
work at speed!! In other countries, surveyors, lawyers and mortgage
lenders work efficiently within a fairer system. That is no argument.
As for gazumping and so on, simply make the offer (for English/Welsh
properties) binding at the time of the offer with a significant
deposit. That would also have the effect of cooling the market, as
people would need the readies to begin with and you wouldn't be
plagued by time wasters who haven't even put their own property on the
market yet. I have had several of these, and it never ceases to amaze
me that they think (like I once did) that selling one's house was a
mere formality.

I've bought and sold in England and Scotland and much prefer the
Scottish, both as a buyer and seller.

As a seller, I can understand! As a buyer, I'd be extremely put off by
the Scottish system. And once I'd bought my house there and had spent
a few years living in it, if I decided to move, I'd get it valued and
play fair with people by stating a fixed asking price. Not much to
ask, is it?

MM

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:33:49 +0100, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:

The message
from Mike Mitchell contains these words:



How about modifying the wording: "Only Cash Offers Over £170,000
Considered"? That would help filter out the time-wasters.

"Cash offers only" filters out anyone who requires a mortgage, which
is most of the market at that level.

"Cash only" in property sales usually signifies the property is
unmortgageable (due to a major construction defect).

Perhaps what I really mean is "no chain". That is, cash to me is just
as sound if it is advanced by the buyer's mortgage company. But that
sort of stipulation is a bit difficult to phrase succinctly. Try it!

MM

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

MM

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


How does it cheat buyers? You place a sealed bid with the seller solicitor.
All bids are opened at the closing date/time. The potential buyer knows how
much he can afford and has place a bid based on a survey. The surveyor will
know the state of the market and what price other similar properties have
fetched.

The seller, if asked, will probably indicate what he/she is willing to
accept. I have bought/sold 4 properties in Scotland and it is a much more
straightforward system by far.
I have never been ripped off/cheated and it prevents all the timewasters
(and sometimes corruption) that you get with the English system.

If it is an overheated market then bids can be placed that will be over the
top. But the same happens in England - apparent transparency on bids does
not prevent this happening.

MM seems to have a fixation on offers over.It does not really make any
difference. Price it high or price it low, or even offers over - it will
sell at a price determined by the market and the common sense, or otherwise,
of the parties involved.

Why are eggs, butter, bread, milk, cars, boats, trains, or
planes not sold in this manner?

Why not indeed.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

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

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 11:32:19 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:




Not an argument that sways me. If adults with some degree of common
sense bid more than they intended, then they are crazy. But when the
system is blind and mired in secrecy, it's the system that is crazy.
And what kind of auction system other than this sealed bid system for
Scottish property would last more than a second if, say, you went to
an auction room to buy an antique and you only had one bid available
to you?

Sealed bids are normal practice in all kinds of commercial
transactions. It is commonplace the world over for somebody
purchasing goods or services to invite sealed bids from would be
suppliers and then to select based on what is offered and the price.
This is simply the reverse of that.

It's also naive to assume that the English system is transparent.
If you make what appears to be an open bid as a buyer, the agent or
the vendor can say that they have a higher one in an effort to bid up
the price. It may or may not be true. A sealed bid system does at
least prevent the wasted time of going round in circles.



There must be thousands of Scots who, after moving in, hear through
the grapevine that Mr X would have willingly accepted a much lower
offer. In other words, Mr X has ripped off the buyer.

This is simply not true. The buyer made an offer that they were
happy to do at the time and the vendor accepted it. Both parties
were happy at the time and that is the end of it. It isn't a rip off
at all.

In any case, the buyer has had the opportunity to get a valuation and
to decide whether he wants to bid at, below or above this value.

In an open system, if the market is rising, the same thing happens -
the bidding goes up beyond the point that the vendor would have
accepted in the first place.

From what you are suggesting, you would only be happy to accept a
situation where the vendor sets a minimum price that he would be happy
with and advertise that, so that the first buyer willing to pay could
come along and make that offer. Why would any vendor want to do
that?



As a seller, I can understand! As a buyer, I'd be extremely put off by
the Scottish system. And once I'd bought my house there and had spent
a few years living in it, if I decided to move, I'd get it valued and
play fair with people by stating a fixed asking price. Not much to
ask, is it?


That's up to you, but I can't see many vendors agreeing with you.
The property market isn't about playing fair. It is about the
vendor getting as much as they can for their property consistent with
making a sale at all and the buyer paying as little as he can
consistent with being able to secure the purchase.
It's not a gentlemen's club.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , Mike Mitchell
wrote:
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:
If this is such a wonderful system, why are new homes not sold in
this 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?

I think you'll find that sales by sealed bid tender are not at all
uncommon where you are selling something that it is not easy to put an
exact value on. I certainly don't see any case for moral outrage: no
one makes you put in a higher bid than you wish and you're not tempted
to do so in the heat of the moment as with an auction.



--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

"Mike Mitchell" wrote
| But when the system is blind and mired in secrecy, it's the
| system that is crazy. And what kind of auction system other
| than this sealed bid system for Scottish property would last
| more than a second if, say, you went to an auction room to buy
| an antique and you only had one bid available to you?

Sealed bids (tenders) are a standard way of negotiating a contract price
throughout industry and public sector administration.

Owain

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 12:43:58 +0000 (UTC), Stephen Gower
wrote:

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.

Good idea!

MM

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

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 16:21:48 +0100, "Owain"
wrote:

"Mike Mitchell" wrote
| But when the system is blind and mired in secrecy, it's the
| system that is crazy. And what kind of auction system other
| than this sealed bid system for Scottish property would last
| more than a second if, say, you went to an auction room to buy
| an antique and you only had one bid available to you?

Sealed bids (tenders) are a standard way of negotiating a contract price
throughout industry and public sector administration.

The aim being to secure the bridge, computer system, or hospital
building at the *lowest* price commensurate with specification
equivalence!

MM

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 13:13:53 +0100, "sid" wrote:

Why not indeed.

Duh, because the very suggestion would be risible among the vast
majority of consumers!

MM

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 13:54:24 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

In article , Mike Mitchell
wrote:
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:
If this is such a wonderful system, why are new homes not sold in
this 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?

I think you'll find that sales by sealed bid tender are not at all
uncommon where you are selling something that it is not easy to put an
exact value on. I certainly don't see any case for moral outrage: no
one makes you put in a higher bid than you wish and you're not tempted
to do so in the heat of the moment as with an auction.

Okay, then. Please explain why vendors in Scotland largely pursue this
unfair system, and, as you ponder, think carefully on the "unfair"
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
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. This
to my mind exactly describes a scam, pure and simple. Basically, as I
see it, the vendor is using the system to *take advantage* of the
buyer. In other words he is not playing fair. 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. 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.

MM

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 19:55:57 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

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

It isn't really an issue of dressing it up. This is a perfectly
reasonable commercial practice and the rules of the game are
completely clear to all concerned. It really doesn't matter that it
is the one large asset that somebody will own either. I see no reason
why the buying and selling of that should differ from normal
commercial practices. After all the vendor is not a charitable
organisation operating as a benefactor to the buyer, and I don't see
why the buyer should expect that.

Also you are assuming that the vendor will provide a figure for what
they are prepared to accept in the English environment.
If I were selling a property and I thought that there will be multiple
offers coming along, I am certainly not going to tell any of them what
I am willing to accept. That would be giving my negotiating position
away, and why would I do that? I'm not a charity either. If such a
question were to be asked, the obvious answer would be the askinging
price but then I would invite offers. I have the choice as to whether
to accept, refuse or wait. If it's a rising market and plenty of
competition among buyers, then I'd wait. Otherwise I might be tempted
to accept.

If you feel that life should be any different, you really shouldn't be
in the property market because you will have difficulty buying and
give away the farm on selling.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

: 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.


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)




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:42:23 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 19:55:57 +0100, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

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

It isn't really an issue of dressing it up. This is a perfectly
reasonable commercial practice and the rules of the game are
completely clear to all concerned. It really doesn't matter that it
is the one large asset that somebody will own either. I see no reason
why the buying and selling of that should differ from normal
commercial practices. After all the vendor is not a charitable
organisation operating as a benefactor to the buyer, and I don't see
why the buyer should expect that.

Also you are assuming that the vendor will provide a figure for what
they are prepared to accept in the English environment.
If I were selling a property and I thought that there will be multiple
offers coming along, I am certainly not going to tell any of them what
I am willing to accept. That would be giving my negotiating position
away, and why would I do that? I'm not a charity either. If such a
question were to be asked, the obvious answer would be the askinging
price but then I would invite offers. I have the choice as to whether
to accept, refuse or wait. If it's a rising market and plenty of
competition among buyers, then I'd wait. Otherwise I might be tempted
to accept.

If you feel that life should be any different, you really shouldn't be
in the property market because you will have difficulty buying and
give away the farm on selling.

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."

"One solution is certainly for the ASA and the Law Society of Scotland
to police rogue solicitors and estate agents who deliberately quote
misleading low prices. While the ASA lacks the power to fine, the Law
Society could certainly discipline its wayward members and should
certainly take steps to indicate the present public disquiet to the
legal profession. A little self-regulation might go a long way in this
instance. Ultimately, of course, the Office of Fair Trading could step
in and take legal action against miscreants."

http://www.property.scotsman.com/news.cfm?id=954482004

Legal action? I'd like to see a large draught blown up their kilts by
rabid, ravenous dogs! That way they'd realise perhaps how they are
ripping off the buying public to assuage their greed.

MM

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

The message
from Mike Mitchell contains these words:


As for gazumping and so on, simply make the offer (for English/Welsh
properties) binding at the time of the offer with a significant
deposit.

In English/Welsh property law neither an offer, or a deposit, binds
the seller or buyer to complete the contract. Your solicitor should have
told you that. Er..you are employing a solicitor to conveyance your
property sale, aren't you?

Change the law. And, duh, I'm employing the local rat catcher to act
on my behalf! Doesn't everybody?

I've bought and sold in England and Scotland and much prefer the
Scottish, both as a buyer and seller.

As a seller, I can understand! As a buyer, I'd be extremely put off by
the Scottish system. And once I'd bought my house there and had spent
a few years living in it, if I decided to move, I'd get it valued and
play fair with people by stating a fixed asking price.

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

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 20:06:49 +0100, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:

The message
from Mike Mitchell contains these words:

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:33:49 +0100, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:

The message
from Mike Mitchell contains these words:



How about modifying the wording: "Only Cash Offers Over £170,000
Considered"? That would help filter out the time-wasters.

"Cash offers only" filters out anyone who requires a mortgage, which
is most of the market at that level.

"Cash only" in property sales usually signifies the property is
unmortgageable (due to a major construction defect).

Perhaps what I really mean is "no chain".

If you stipulate "no chain", you eliminate all buyers who have a
property to sell in England and Wales.

Er, that's what "cash only" is usually inferred to mean!

You'd better start advertising in
Scotland.

My property is advertised everywhere where there is access to the
internet. Scots are always welcome, too!

That is, cash to me is just
as sound if it is advanced by the buyer's mortgage company.

Meaningless. Mortgagors don't make, or promise, cash payments to the
seller in advance of the conveyance.

Here's a hair. See if you can split this one, too!

MM

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.
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.

MM

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

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 09:09:07 +0100, 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. 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."

"One solution is certainly for the ASA and the Law Society of Scotland
to police rogue solicitors and estate agents who deliberately quote
misleading low prices. While the ASA lacks the power to fine, the Law
Society could certainly discipline its wayward members and should
certainly take steps to indicate the present public disquiet to the
legal profession. A little self-regulation might go a long way in this
instance. Ultimately, of course, the Office of Fair Trading could step
in and take legal action against miscreants."

http://www.property.scotsman.com/news.cfm?id=954482004


I don't pay too much attention to what the press (even the
semi-quality press) says about things like this.
They are simply looking for a story and an angle. The article is
phrased in terms of "could" and "might" - no figures are given.



Legal action? I'd like to see a large draught blown up their kilts by
rabid, ravenous dogs! That way they'd realise perhaps how they are
ripping off the buying public to assuage their greed.


There is nothing fundamentally wrong with greed - it's human nature.
Everybody has that attribute to some degree, or they are lying to
themselves and others.


To quote two well known examples:

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

In his speech, Boesky said "Greed is all right, by the way. I want you
to know that. I think greed is healthy. You can be greedy and still
feel good about yourself."

Gordon Gecko (Wall St):

"The point is, ladies and gentlemen, greed is good. Greed works, greed
is right. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of
the evolutionary spirit. Greed in all its forms, greed for life,
money, love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind -- and
greed, mark my words -- will save not only Teldar Paper but that other
malfunctioning corporation called the USA"
..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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

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?

--
Richard Faulkner

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.

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.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl