Back to the good old days.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

shortchanged wrote: »

Serious question for you Hamish, seeing as you seem to be against any regulation in the housing market.

Why do you believe that estate agents, the very people who handle the biggest financial commitment of most peoples lives can act with such impunity as a bunch of unruly cowboys?

I don't particularly care if they are regulated.

American Estate Agents are, they have to study extensively and pass exams, and can be censured by their professional bodies in the event of improper behaviour.

But as we've seen in the birthplace of the NINJA loan, it makes absolutely no difference to the outcomes.

Regulation will add costs to consumers, and make no difference to the market, as current abuses are so vanishingly small in the big scheme of things as to be irrelevant.

But if you want to pay more in EA fees, crack on.....

shortchanged_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Which agency chain?

Can't remember their names but they included some of the biggest EA's in the UK.

MFW_ASAP

shortchanged wrote: »

Well it is one way to get an IO mortgage I suppose.

You must have cracked open the Champagne when you saw that. You can get a little bit more mileage out of your single-issue campaign.

Generali

We have regulated realtors in Aus. They're still mostly scum.

michaels

shortchanged wrote: »

Well maybe they could actually be held liable for their actions.

The funny thing is it is actually in the interests of estate agents to set up a professional body and compusory regualtion as then they can control competition and increase prices. Locally, we have new agencies like '0.5%' and '1% or less', I bet the established agencies would love to have a way of excluding such competition. Look at areas like electrical safety, fitting windows and even barristers, regulation may stamp out cowboys but it definitely also allows higher prices to be charged across the board.

CLAPTON

shortchanged wrote: »

Yes I suppose so, seeing as estate agents are unregulated they are a law unto themselves.

The UK housing market desperately needs regulating, although obviously this will cost the consumer a fortune (classic scaremongering tactics).

USA heavily regulates their real estate agencies

typical fees are round 6% so on a 180,000 property you would pay round 10,600

clearly a vote winner

Generali

michaels wrote: »

The funny thing is it is actually in the interests of estate agents to set up a professional body and compusory regualtion as then they can control competition and increase prices. We have new agencie slike 0.5% and 1% or less, I bet the established agencies would love to have a way of excluding such competition. Look at areas like electrical safety, fitting windows and even barristers, regulation may stamp out cowboys but it definitely also allows higher prices to be charged across the board.

Over here it's cheaper to qualify as a realtor and sell your own house than it is to pay the fees. You generally pay 3% plus all marketing costs or 5% all in. Selling this place:

http://www.domain.com.au/Property/For-Sale/House/NSW/Parramatta/?adid=2009204178

Which is an old house in a pretty unpleasant part of town will cost you $20-30k!

That's what regulation of Estate Agencies gets you.

shortchanged_2

What is needed is no in house mortgage advisors, total ban.

And there needs to be a recordable and traceable system in place in order to make such things as phantom offers etc illegal. At the end of the day the house buying system in this country is too cloak and dagger and far too easy to manipulate and temptation to lie is far too great.

Sellers should be liable for buyers costs if they pull out of a deal on an accepted offer if it is within say a 12 week window in order to reduce the temptation of gazumping. Obviously if a buyer pulls out they are liable. Basically making the acceptance of an offer more legally binding than it currently is with some financial implications for sellers if they leave buyers out of pocket.

michaels

shortchanged wrote: »

What is needed is no in house mortgage advisors, total ban.

And there needs to be a recordable and traceable system in place in order to make such things as phantom offers etc illegal. At the end of the day the house buying system in this country is too cloak and dagger and far too easy to manipulate and temptation to lie is far too great.

Sellers should be liable for buyers costs if they pull out of a deal on an accepted offer if it is within say a 12 week window in order to reduce the temptation of gazumping. Obviously if a buyer pulls out they are liable. Basically making the acceptance of an offer more legally binding than it currently is with some financial implications for sellers if they leave buyers out of pocket.

There is a legally binding point in the house transaction process, it is called 'exchange of contracts'. Before that point the neither party has enough information to confirm the transaction and price.

shortchanged_2

michaels wrote: »

There is a legally binding point in the house transaction process, it is called 'exchange of contracts'. Before that point the neither party has enough information to confirm the transaction and price.

Yes but as far as I'm concerned acceptance of an offer should form part of a pre exchange contract and that a seller should be liable for buyers costs if they pull out of a sale. i.e the acceptance of an offer is legally binding with some financial implications.

Why should buyers be left out of pocket paying for surveys, mortgage fees and solicitor fees if a seller renegades on a deal because someone has come in with a higher offer.

Yes most sellers have scruples and will not consider gazumping but there are many out there who have little moral and ethical understanding. And before you wonder if I have been left high and dry to feel like this, no I haven't. I just feel sorry for people that it has happened to.