OMG! BBC Whistleblower - Estate Agents

MORPH3US

stanmoresaver wrote:

It's similar to a obese person suing McDonalds because they didn't know it would make them fat, or a 40 a day smoker with lung cancer suing the tobacco companies. People need to walk in the real world

Similar but not the same!

Everyone knows if you eat McD's you risk getting fat (and all the health aspects etc). Everyone knows if you smoke you risk getting lung cancer.

Not everyone knows that if you go to an estate agent you get shafted because its not true of every estate agent. You have to trust that the estate agent you are using is honest (using educated guesses basically) otherwise the world would be one paranoid place!

Its the same with banks, i'm trust that my bank is looking after my money and my best interests relating to my money. I'm sure that a programme like that could reveal some dodgy practices but in the end you have to trust them to be legit.

M

MORPH3US

nickmack wrote:

I'm not convinced any of these worms actually got fired. All the statements stated they were suspended and under investigation.

Even though they didn't actually say that anyone was fired in any of those companies, I guarantee that people will have been.

They just wouldn't say on TV because a) they don't like giving much away, b) they would need to fully investigate the incidents to make sure that they sacked the right people within guidelines to avoid being sued for wrongfull dismissal.

It is far better for them to say "we are conducting a full investigation" and leave it at that rather than a knee jerk reaction, sacking people and then living to regret it!

M

nickmack

MORPH3US wrote:

Even though they didn't actually say that anyone was fired in any of those companies, I guarantee that people will have been.

They just wouldn't say on TV because a) they don't like giving much away, b) they would need to fully investigate the incidents to make sure that they sacked the right people within guidelines to avoid being sued for wrongfull dismissal.

It is far better for them to say "we are conducting a full investigation" and leave it at that rather than a knee jerk reaction, sacking people and then living to regret it!

This programme was probably filmed months ago. They have had plenty of chance since the events to conduct a proper investigation. For the smaller firms, they might not care, but I'm a bit suprised Foxtons haven't attempted to repair their image a bit more, rather than releasing the usual generic statement.

mr218

i think that the mcdonalds analogy is not appropriate. you dont need to have a happy meal or a whopper. you dont need to smoke. you choose it as a leisure activity.

but buying a house is a fairly essential purchase for most of us. also it is the most expensive purchase we will make in our lives. so to suggest that the purchaser is at fault for approaching these agents is rubbish.

these agents are well rewarded for selling houses. if they sell the house and behave professionally they still stand to earn a decent amount.

the excuse that everyone is doing it and we have to do it to survive is not acceptable.

stanmoresaver

mr218 wrote:

i think that the mcdonalds analogy is not appropriate. you dont need to have a happy meal or a whopper. you dont need to smoke. you choose it as a leisure activity.

but buying a house is a fairly essential purchase for most of us. also it is the most expensive purchase we will make in our lives. so to suggest that the purchaser is at fault for approaching these agents is rubbish.

these agents are well rewarded for selling houses. if they sell the house and behave professionally they still stand to earn a decent amount.

the excuse that everyone is doing it and we have to do it to survive is not acceptable.

My point is that there are other alternatives out there so use them. Not all Estate Agents are like those on the programme last night so there is a choice- if your ability to research the market or read the charecter of the person isn't strong, develop it, don't be lazy and just go with the first, or most pushy/slick, agent you meet!

Just like i always advocate on the mortgage board regarding one's choice of a mortgage broker!

worldtraveller

The programme also goes to show that companies made up of wide-boys in flashy suits and sloany birds that speak like they just left finishing school that daddy paid for, don't necessarily make for good people to represent your interests as a vendor. Estate agents are of course out there to make money for themselves, but unfortunately many do not do the job that they should be doing - first & foremost representing their clients interests!

silvercar

Not all Estate Agents are like those on the programme last night so there is a choice

Not if the EA you distrust has sole agency on the house you want!

At least I'm aware of what he's like and judge his comments accordingly.

Doozergirl

herbiesjp wrote:

The point here is the the agnet has overvalued to get the instruction in the first place. So the agent has already raised the vendors expection.

If he wants to be upfront, he could say sorry overpriced, lets reduce the price. If they do that then will they not get real lower offers coming in?

The agent wouldn't have to overvalue if vendor's didn't think that they knew better. There's enough tv programs out there saying to take the average of three valuations - it's greed that makes people pick the highest rather than the best valuation. Vendors generally don't get real low offers because people generally don't view what they can't afford.

Everyone keeps harping on about house sales being the biggest financial commitment of your life, so why don't people behave more sensibly and do a bit of their own research into the local market before embarking on a sale or purchase? Most of the EAs tactics would be weeded out very quickly by research and people being a little less emotive about houses, which are made of bricks, not dreams unfortunately.

Of course, I'm playing devil's advocate here, where such vast sums are involved there should be proper regulation together with legislation to make the whole transaction smoother and encourage more of a binding commitment from both vendor and purchaser. It'd certainly make my life a lot less stressful, though void of colourful characters like Barry.

Edna_Bucket_2

Very topical that the OFT moves to act today:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/News/Press+releases/2006/56-06.htm

and more generally:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/News/Press+releases/2006/55-06.htm

I wonder if it will help?

Jorgan_2

The OFT may help, but sellers need to be more aware of the various schemes that are out their. I have sat various EA exmas, the small company I work for is part of the NAEA, Ombudsman scheme & OFT approved. I spend a couple of minutes on every valuation I go on explaining this to people, 99 times out of a 100 when I ask them if they have questions relating to this, they usually reply with 'whats it worth & whats it going to cost?' It seems to be the only two things they use when choosing their agent.