Housebuying without estate agents...

rd_se3

My first post here !

I am taking an interest in a particular house with a view to purchase (yes, feel free to tell me I'm mad at this stage of the housing market!). The house in question was on the market with estage agent A, a local estate agent in June 08. Having not sold, it went to estate agent B, who have a wider span of offices, in September 08 who soon lowered the price by £20k.

It didn't sell, and so finally at the end of December it went off the market, to private rental (i.e. not through an estate agent), which happened to be to their neighbours who are currently building an extension on their house due to be finished around June time.

Estate Agent A told me all about this when I visited their office and arranged a viewing with the tenants of the house (whom Estate Agents A "know well") and I was shown around duly on Saturday and liked it. Given that the house is now a private rental, do I actually have to conduct any of my business through the estate agents, or am I free to (at least attempt to) contact the owners through the existing tenants?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts,
Richard

bob79

You already conducted part of the business through the estate agent: the viewing. You're too late with trying to get around estate agents.

david29dpo

Nothing to do with the agents anymore. Just ask the owners what there plans are for the house.

mbga9pgf

just speak to the Owners. screw the EAs.

Doozergirl

You can't leave the EA out of this because you've engaged them already. If you'd contacted them directly after it had been withdrawn for market and not had any contact with an EA yourself then you would have been fine.

There is no benefit to you of leaving them out anyway - all the risk is taken on by the vendor. The EA is involved now and they will be following up on your viewing with the vendors. Many vendors won't proceed without an agent anyway - they think they are integral to a sale.

mbga9pgf

Doozergirl wrote: »

You can't leave the EA out of this because you've engaged them already. If you'd contacted them directly after it had been withdrawn for market and not had any contact with an EA yourself then you would have been fine.

There is no benefit to you of leaving them out anyway - all the risk is taken on by the vendor. The EA is involved now and they will be following up on your viewing with the vendors. Many vendors won't proceed without an agent anyway - they think they are integral to a sale.

Well, you could split the EA fees towards the price, one way the buyer could benefit... If its been taken off the market and is now rented, why should the seller pay ea fees? I hate these attitudes, as if EAs have a right to money for selling everones houses. Lets face facts, if it went off the market, and was sold to this buyer, is the EA really going to go to the bother of chasing them through the courts with associated costs? Thought not. As I said, screw them. They screw us for 1-3%, about time people got even in this age of frugality. What risk is the buyer putting themselves in by the way by buying outside of an estate agent? Thats a joke in itself.

Doozergirl

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Well, you could split the EA fees towards the price, one way the buyer could benefit... If its been taken off the market and is now rented, why should the seller pay ea fees? I hate these attitudes, as if EAs have a right to money for selling everones houses. Lets face facts, if it went off the market, and was sold to this buyer, is the EA really going to go to the bother of chasing them through the courts with associated costs? Thought not. As I said, screw them. They screw us for 1-3%, about time people got even in this age of frugality. What risk is the buyer putting themselves in by the way by buying outside of an estate agent? Thats a joke in itself.

It is certainly not an 'attitude'. If the vendor accepts a viewing from a prospective buyer through an EA then the contract is already assumed - the fact that they already had a contract is simply bolstering for the EA. EAs do not have a right to sell everyone's houses but if you involve one, you can't then decide that you don't want to pay for their services. They introduce buyers, that is their job. The OP saw the house advertised by an EA and subsequently got in contact. The EA therefore introduced this buyer therefore they are entitled to their fee, you can't get away from that.

If the OP had approached the vendor independently then the EA, whilst they may have introduced the purchaser to the vendor via their marketing, would have no proof of having contact with the OP and therefore, with the property officially off the market, they would find it exceptionally hard to prove that they were due any fee.

Introducing a buyer directly entitles them to their fee and yes, I'm sure they will be sending a bill to the vendor. Therefore the risk is entirely that of the vendor - and yes, there is a risk; Why split any difference in the EA fees with a buyer when a bill from that EA is likely to arrive?

Whether or not to use an EA to sell a house is a decision made purely by the vendor. The presumption that buyers can save money by a vendor not paying a fee is a bit skewed. It is simply wrong for a buyer to try and influence a vendor to do otherwise when the EA is already involved. They are asking the vendor to deprive the EA of the fee that they have to pay in order to give the money to the buyer. It's underhand and I would personally question what else this buyer would be prepared to do to save money.

The OP should have asked the question before involving the EA if there was going to be a different answer.

To be frank, it's your attitude that's questionable when you talk of 'screwing' people.

Troubled_Joe

It's quite simply not your problem. The terms of any agreement are between the agent and vendor and for them to argue about.

Put your offer in to whoever you want to.

mbga9pgf

Doozergirl wrote: »

It is certainly not an 'attitude'. If the vendor accepts a viewing from a prospective buyer through an EA then the contract is already assumed - the fact that they already had a contract is simply bolstering for the EA. EAs do not have a right to sell everyone's houses but if you involve one, you can't then decide that you don't want to pay for their services. They introduce buyers, that is their job. The OP saw the house advertised by an EA and subsequently got in contact. The EA therefore introduced this buyer therefore they are entitled to their fee, you can't get away from that.

If the OP had approached the vendor independently then the EA, whilst they may have introduced the purchaser to the vendor via their marketing, would have no proof of having contact with the OP and therefore, with the property officially off the market, they would find it exceptionally hard to prove that they were due any fee.

Introducing a buyer directly entitles them to their fee and yes, I'm sure they will be sending a bill to the vendor. Therefore the risk is entirely that of the vendor - and yes, there is a risk; Why split any difference in the EA fees with a buyer when a bill from that EA is likely to arrive?

The OP should not have involved the EA. The minute they did and the vendor accepted the viewing, the EA is involved. You can't uninvolve them because you want a house cheaper. Ask the question before involving an EA :confusing:

Whether or not to use an EA to sell a house is a decision made purely by the vendor. The presumption that buyers can save money by a vendor not paying a fee is a bit skewed. It is simply wrong for a buyer to try and influence a vendor to do otherwise when the EA is already involved. They are asking the vendor to deprive the EA of the fee that they have to pay in order to give the money to the buyer. It's underhand and I would personally question what else this buyer would be prepared to do to save money.

You are missing my point. How will the EA know?

Doozergirl

mbga9pgf wrote: »

You are missing my point. How will the EA know?

Erm..

rd_se3 wrote: »

Estate Agent A told me all about this when I visited their office and arranged a viewing with the tenants of the house (whom Estate Agents A "know well") and I was shown around duly on Saturday and liked it.

Apart from arranging the viewing, do you think the tenants, "known well" by Agent A won't mention something when the house gets sold from under them? Or that simply the EA will contact the vendors to let them know that someone is interested?

You're virtually admitting it's underhand by asking how the agents will find out If they did find out, then where's the problem if it's fine for the OP to exclude the EA?

Debt_Free_Chick

rd_se3 wrote: »

My first post here !

I am taking an interest in a particular house with a view to purchase (yes, feel free to tell me I'm mad at this stage of the housing market!). The house in question was on the market with estage agent A, a local estate agent in June 08. Having not sold, it went to estate agent B, who have a wider span of offices, in September 08 who soon lowered the price by £20k.

Estate Agent A told me all about this when I visited their office and arranged a viewing with the tenants of the house (whom Estate Agents A "know well") and I was shown around duly on Saturday and liked it.

Interesting that EA A did all of this, if they were not the agents.

Are you sure it's off the market? Sure that EA A is not still actively appointed?

Or have I misunderstood .....?