Repossession Property & An Obstructive Estate Agent

poppysarah

Write a letter to the papers too! Lots of the banks are part public owned now - so doing private deals to makes is damaging the tax payer directly!

princeofpounds

Write a letter to the papers too!

Be careful. If you accuse someone of fradulent behaviour in public whether in writing or verbally you might well find yourself with a lawyer's letter and a court summons.

better to speak to a journo and get them to investigate. of course they probably won't as the EAs are basically paying for the journo's salary with their advertising.

pusscat

Whenever you get any kind of negative response from an estate agent who is dealing with a repo, ask them " so how does this fit in with TCF then"?

TCF (Treating Customers Fairly) is the FSA code of conduct. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/doing/regulated/tcf/

There is a clearly defined pathway for delaing with repo's - everything should be documented and transparent.

A lot of agents are not really clued up on TCF, but they know that not complying is bad for them! Showing them you know about TCF (even if you don't really) usually gets a far higher level of response.

The regulated firm (usually the bank or building society) is responsible for the TCF of the customer (the person who got reposessed is still a customer and still entitled to TCF) and if an estate agent puts a regulated firm in breach of TCF then it is a bit of a biggie!

Also, if the EA is also regulated then they will not want a TCF investigation themselves.

TCF is designed to allow a fair and transparent reposession process and to stop the backhanders that used to happen - the TCF applies mainly to the customer who was reposessed (they are not getting the best price for their house) but it is a very useful too to pull dodgy estate agents up with.


Puss
xx

SouthCoast

This is a transparent Rightmove listing:

Notice of Offer-By order of the mortgagees in posession, we would advise that an offer has been made for the above property in the sum of £172,500. Any person wishing to increase on this offer should notify the agents of their best offer prior to exchange of contracts. 01323 735561

princeofpounds

Pusscat is right, in a sense.

The agent is NOT regulated by the FSA. But they work for a bank that IS regulated by the FSA, so the threat here is that a dodgy EA can give the bank a liability for a regulatory investigation/penalty. That's why you can/should complain to the bank as well as the agent.

Their mortgage man might be regulated too, which is another lever if he gets too heavy.

LisaLou1982

Some people on here dont half talk a load of carp. Dont know where you get your info from about doing things!!!

From someone who used to be an EA and worked for the largest EA group in the country - im sure you'll know who they are! - i'll explain the process for you.

Yes, Countrywide estate agents get the majority of repos. This is because Countrywide Repos have contracts set up with a variety of different lenders to manage their repossessions.

All of the EA's deal with the repo departments on a regular basis. The procedure of 7 day notice, offers being put forward etc is standard practise.

The EAs arent stupid - once an offer has been accepted on a property, they speak to repos and get an idea of what theyre willing to do. Are they willing to take an ofer of £100 higher when the property is 3 days from exchange? no? Then they arent going to waste their time going out to the house every 2 minutes to arrange viewings for someone that will never buy the property.

Theres no point in writing to the bank like Timmyt says - this will get you nowhere as it is now not being dealt with by them. Im not entirely sure why you have such an issue with corporate agents Timmyt. They provide a massive amount of business to many people. Yourself included. I imagine many of your clients buy properties through corporate agents do they not?

OP - If you are 100% interested in buying the property and are still being put off from viewing it, then call the manager of the EA and insist that they show you around the property. We used to do block viewings once a week at a certain time on repos that already had sales agreed on them. Selling a property is not always about getting the best price on a repo - ive known many a time where a cash offer with a 14 day exchange has been accepted for quite a few £k less than a mortgage offer. The repo companies are, in my experience, much more concerned with making sure the debt on the property doesnt escaliate for months on end through the property not being sold due to a mortgage falling through.

Be aware that they wont accept an offer until youve viewed the property so why not put an offer forward for whatever price you feel is a good offer and put it in writing. That way, you'll have to view the house to know what youre buying and be happy with what youve offered. Quite often, an offer an being rejected immedietely, or to the other extreme, take over a week for the financial side to make a decision on what to do.

Try and keep the EA on side though as the repo company will ask their opinion on reliability on you as a buyer.

RE financial appointment - it is also common for the lenders to require that anyone offering on a property has seen the financial advisor. They do not state that you have to use them for a mortgage, and anyone telling you this is wrong. Obviously they will try and see if they can better your deal - and if they can then you have gained. If not, then you dont have to use them. Ive known repo companies turn down offers based on the fact that the buyer wont provide evidence of being able to afford the property as they dont see why they should have to. As the OP has already seen the FA, then this is in his favour. All that remains is whether the repo department want to carry on with the existing sale or start a new one.

NB - all the above is based on my experience on working for a corporate agent - i couldnt comment on how a smaller agent might deal with their repos. Good luck OP - hope youre sucessful!

Just to add...... Forgot about the credit check thing. This is a load of cobblers - there is no obligation for you to be credit checked under any circumstances. However, if you didnt already have an agreement in principle then it would be beneficial for you to get one but this wouldnt advantage the FA in anyway.

princeofpounds

Lisa Lou, that a very impassioned if somewhat rose-tinted view of what these agents are doing, but in all fairness I think there were more than enough red flags of incorrect behaviour by the EAs in the OP's experience.

The bullying behaviour of the FA for one. Buyers do NOT need to be credit checked. Buyers don't even need to see an in-house FA - making this a 'requirement' is never done for the benefit of the buyers but for the benefit of the EA/FA themselves. Plenty of EAs used to and still do operate without FAs. You should know this.

If they are prepared to lie about that, then I think their credibility is already shot to shreds.

LisaLou1982

princeofpounds wrote: »

Lisa Lou, that a very impassioned if somewhat rose-tinted view of what these agents are doing, but in all fairness I think there were more than enough red flags of incorrect behaviour by the EAs in the OP's experience.

The bullying behaviour of the FA for one. Buyers do NOT need to be credit checked. Buyers don't even need to see an in-house FA - making this a 'requirement' is never done for the benefit of the buyers but for the benefit of the EA/FA themselves. Plenty of EAs used to and still do operate without FAs. You should know this.

If they are prepared to lie about that, then I think their credibility is already shot to shreds.

Prince, dont attempt to patronise me. At no point in my post did i say that a buyer needed to be credit checked. In fact i made it clear that they did NOT.

My views are most certainly not rose tinted - having worked for an EA for quite some years i think that i am in a better position that most to be able to put forward the ways of how things actually happen rather than what people think might happen.

Making sure that a buyer is in a position to proceed is in EVERYONES best interests. Since you post so regularly on this forum, you should know this.

The amount of buyers who still go into estate agents with no idea of how much they can borrow is still astounding. This is the reason that many vendors and in my experience, repo companies, require the buyer to provide evidence that they can afford the property. This is done either by having a mortgage appointment or producing a valid AIP to the mortgage advisor.

Enfieldian

Good posts LisaLou.

Reminds me of when "buyers" would ring up after a seven day notice insisting that they wanted to view a repo and say "If I like it I will put mine up for sale......."

DVardysShadow

LisaLou1982 wrote: »

Some people on here dont half talk a load of carp. Dont know where you get your info from about doing things!!!

From someone who used to be an EA and worked for the largest EA group in the country - im sure you'll know who they are! - i'll explain the process for you.

<idealised description of repo process from EA point of view snipped>

I think you are largely off topic here. We all know how repos should work to a fairly reasonable level. What is at issue is the obstacles to viewings put up by some agents. And the suspicion that some property developers/chancers/spivs are putting in a low offer, which they are safeguading by offering a backhander to the decision maker within the EA office.

And I did find your post quite patronising.

LisaLou1982 wrote: »

Theres no point in writing to the bank like Timmyt says - this will get you nowhere as it is now not being dealt with by them. Im not entirely sure why you have such an issue with corporate agents Timmyt. They provide a massive amount of business to many people. Yourself included. I imagine many of your clients buy properties through corporate agents do they not?

That is thoroughly scary. It means that there is no effective scrutiny of the overall process nor of the probity of individual sales. While you are trying to deflect criticism of the process, you have effectively admitted it is wide open to corruption.

The repossessed have probably made unwise financial choices. But if there is corruption and repo properties are being sold at less than market value, it is the repossessed who will be chased by the banks for the shortfall - or who will not receive any remaining surplus. It is not the banks being defrauded, it is individuals. If the banks are not monitoring the process, then they are facilitating the fraud .

LisaLou1982 wrote: »

Prince, dont attempt to patronise me.

Pot Kettle.

My turn: LisaLou1982, perhaps you are not sufficiently senior to get a chance to have your snout in this particular trough?