The Modern Estate Agent - What do you want?

motherofstudents

At the lower end ie below £100000 it seems a bit unfair to me that every agent we have spoken to will charge a set amount rather than a percentage. I would second what others have said about honesty. Most people check out property websites and have a fair understanding so why give inflated asking prices and time scales. Also there is always a lot of criticism of photographs and I'm sure they could be improved with a bit of thought and effort. Tell people if their presentation is bad - you can wrap it up in a nice way, but don't be smarmy. Hope that helps and I have no idea where you are so if you really were promoting your business I think it would be wasted on most people who, as you rightly say don't live anywhere near you.

googler

motherofstudents wrote: »

At the lower end ie below £100000 it seems a bit unfair to me that every agent we have spoken to will charge a set amount rather than a percentage.

The implication being that the 'set amount' is their minimum fee, and that if they charged a set percentage, that would end up being less than the minimum?

What do you suggest as an alternative to the agent having a minimum fee?

taxiphil

nearlyrich wrote: »

My pet gripe about EA is the dodgy pics they use, get a professional in for heaven's sake!

I agree. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that local EAs should all be using high-end SLR cameras and that their staff should have at least a basic level of training in photography.

When I used a local EA to market my house I was astonished when he whipped out a crappy little 2 megapixel compact camera (it looked like a £30 Argos job) and did a very hasty "point and shoot" in every room, without any real thought as to optimising the shots. E.g. He didn't stand right back against the walls, he stood a couple of feet into the room. Now surely that's beginners level stuff - even a child could work out that by standing as far back as possible you'll make the room look bigger.

And judging from what I've seen on Rightmove, poor photography seems to be the norm from local EAs.

I even saw one listing where the camera's built-in date stamp was imprinted on the corner of every photo, and the EA hadn't even bothered setting the right date, it said something like "01/01/2001".

Racky_Roo

I sold a couple of months ago. My house was on the edge of a large city, but also on the edge of a council estate and my house was also ex local authority (although didin't look the traditional style, was much nicer) I went with an internet company, mainly to save money but also because IMO, most people find their houses on the internet and don't use Estate Agents offices. I thought my house would be hard to sell, but for £500, it was worth a go

I sold my house to the first person who came and viewed. Did I underprice it as there wasn't an Estate Agent to guide me? possibly, but my old neighbour has now put her's on the market for the same price as mine and hasn't had an offer in the 8 weeks it's been on the market. I think I got lucky and more importantly, I was happy with the sale price.

However, you get what you pay for with internet agents. Once the sale is agreed, the interest drops with them and I was left chasing for info all the time and never got a straight answer. I honestly believe if it wasn't for the Estate Agent I bought from being so proactive, the chain would have fallen apart.

When I sell again, it would be nice to see an agent doing flat fee's of a reasonable amount, such as £1000 for sales up to £175,000 with extras such as the EA doing the viewings at an additional charge rather than the % system, with VAT on top, THEN I would choose a local agent, but until that happens, i'll still choose an internet one for price.

Hope this helps the research

googler

taxiphil wrote: »

I agree. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that local EAs should all be using high-end SLR cameras and that their staff should have at least a basic level of training in photography.

When I used a local EA to market my house I was astonished when he whipped out a crappy little 2 megapixel compact camera (it looked like a £30 Argos job) and did a very hasty "point and shoot" in every room

Could you reliably tell the difference between 2, 5 or 7 megapixels when presented with a thumbnail photo on Rightmove or another website?

It's not the quality of the camera that matters, or whether it's an SLR or a compact, it's the preparation that goes before the photos that makes the difference.

Someone commented on another thread that an EA had taken an 'unprofessional' set of photos of someone's house, when what was wrong with the photos was the personal clutter in the house - the wire dish drainer left on the worktop, the shoes under the bed, the face flannel and cleaning product lying around in the bathroom - all the stuff that should have been taken care of before the photographer arrived.

Upgrading the camera won't change any of this.

googler

Racky_Roo wrote: »

When I sell again, it would be nice to see an agent doing flat fee's of a reasonable amount, such as £1000 for sales up to £175,000 with extras such as the EA doing the viewings at an additional charge rather than the % system

What's the logic behind £1000 being 'reasonable' at up to £175k, and what happens at £175k? Charge more above this? How does a sliding scale of flat fees differ from charging a %age of sale price?

An agent in my area charges individually for viewings as you suggest - they hire folks from outside the agency to do them.

It always struck me that the longer the house stayed on the market, the more the hired viewer person would be paid - i.e. their incentive was to leave the house on the market to earn more money, rather than sell it and interrupt their income stream......

Running_Horse

Subscribes to thread. Got a quiet night at work tonight.

chris_m

googler wrote: »

Could you reliably tell the difference between 2, 5 or 7 megapixels when presented with a thumbnail photo on Rightmove or another website?
It's not the quality of the camera that matters, or whether it's an SLR or a compact, it's the preparation that goes before the photos that makes the difference.

2Mp would be fine TBH - however the quality of the camera beyond that can and will make a difference.
The better quality camera will be better able to handle the extreme lighting differences where, for example, the pic includes a window. It's fair enough for the window to be blown out somewhat but when the rest of the room is underexposed as well it's very difficult to see what the room is really like. A better quality camera will be able to handle those lighting extremes better.

Doesn't have to be a high-end DSLR either, mid to high-end point & shoots are extremely capable nowadays. The only advantage I can see for a DSLR would be for fitting wider-angle lenses then P&S cameras tend to have so that more of a room can be included - that, however, requires more skill to use to avoid distortions. Swings and roundabouts I guess.

chris_m

Kendall85 wrote: »

re: fees. I think it depends on the property in question a 200K 3 Bedroom semi on an estate isn't going to require as much time and effort as a 800K Grade II Listed Farmhouse in the middle of nowhere. - However, I don't believe (if we are going on a basis of 1.5%+VAT) that it should cost another £6000..

A good (and refreshingly honest) point.

Maybe some form of sliding scale where the percentage fee is reduced as the price increases might be more reasonable and still workable. eg 1.5% for up to 200K, 1.25% for 200K to 400K, 1% for >400K - or something like that.