is gazumping illegal these days?

hazyjo

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i know the person who loses out will be upset or angry - but i don't know why they would be annoyed with the buyer - especially if their offer was less than the asking price.

You really believe an asking price set by an EA (or more often, the vendor!) is a true valuation of what the property's worth then? Not what someone's willing to pay (as is how most would establish its 'value'?)?

Interesting.

Jx

The_White_Horse

hazyjo wrote: »

Because people spend a lot of money on buying a house.

Are YOU seriously saying that you think it's acceptable to think you're purchasing a house only to be told two months in that the vendors are selling to someone else?

Crazy. It could go on for years - especially in a rising market lol. Average house purchase is three months. Can you imagine the nightmare if every chain risked breaking down a couple of months in cos of a better offer? Would slow the chain down for a start, and ones with several links could end up taking a year to complete.

Ho hum - each to their own anyway, we all have our own opinions.

Jx

Yes. It is absolutely acceptable. Until contracts are exchanged, the potential buyer can simply walk away if they find something better. Therefore, the reverse is also true.

i think if the buyer wants the house off the market until contracts are exchanged they should give something of value to the seller to do so.

Otherwise, the seller could miss out on potential genuine sales if the buyer pulls out for any reason.

I think it is completely unfair that the seller should take all the risk whilst the buyer can just swan about and buy something else.

Dan-Dan

literally , a never ending chain

hazyjo

You have some interesting takes on the property market. Will be even more interesting to find someone who agrees with all you're saying.

Jx

googler

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i don't know why a buyer would be upset with a seller for accepting a better deal? if they have their house on for £250k and I offer £250k and they accept - if another person came along and offered £260k or £265k they would be mad to turn it down. Why turn £15k down??

Because they've already accepted an offer! Because in accepting that offer, they (should) have agreed to sell the house to you, and if they arbitrarily drop you in favour of someone else, without your agreement, that's essentially dishonourable.

In the situation you outline above, in a fast-rising market, the seller would never actually sell to anyone.

A offers £210, two weeks later B is willing to offer £215k, so the seller drops A in favour of B. then C comes along willing to offer £220k, and B is dropped. Where do we stop?

It's all very well to say "at exchange", but if that's the case, and no-one can place any value or certainty on the acceptance of an offer.....

hazyjo

The_White_Horse wrote: »

Yes. It is absolutely acceptable. Until contracts are exchanged, the potential buyer can simply walk away if they find something better. Therefore, the reverse is also true.

i think if the buyer wants the house off the market until contracts are exchanged they should give something of value to the seller to do so.

Otherwise, the seller could miss out on potential genuine sales if the buyer pulls out for any reason.

I think it is completely unfair that the seller should take all the risk whilst the buyer can just swan about and buy something else.

You do realise that the seller has as much right to pull out as the buyer? Not sure why you think the seller is taking all the risk. Two way street as it currently stands.

Jx

googler

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i don't know why a buyer would be upset with a seller for accepting a better deal? if they have their house on for £250k and I offer £250k and they accept - if another person came along and offered £260k or £265k they would be mad to turn it down. Why turn £15k down??

Because you can waste your life away in the search for a 'better deal'?

You can wander from shop to shop in search of the cheapest widget, but there comes a point where the expenditure in time, shoe leather and/or petrol outweighs the benefit of the deal....

If I put my house up for sale, I want to move house. Soon. I don't want to waste two months with buyer A, then switch to buyer B, C or D, and find that we're into next year and I haven't moved.

I want to agree a price with A, stick to what we agreed, and get on with it.

spacey2012

Buyers do mess about for months and pull out, this is why you leave the house for sale until they finish messing about and get their backsides in to the office and sign the contract.

You are selling a house not providing a moralistic service.

googler

The_White_Horse wrote: »

Yes. It is absolutely acceptable. Until contracts are exchanged, the potential buyer can simply walk away if they find something better. Therefore, the reverse is also true.

I think it is completely unfair that the seller should take all the risk whilst the buyer can just swan about and buy something else.

Please tell us what 'risk' the seller is exposed to that the buyer isn't ....

Principia_2

The_White_Horse wrote: »

so basically, you all feel that it should be exchange of contracts before exchange of contracts.

No, loads of things can go wrong before exchange of contracts - but why should I increase the chances of problems by having an agreement with someone who has shown that his attitude to other people is one of uncaring opportunism? Someone like that might easily be looking to gazunder me the day before exchange? That adds to uncertainty and I want to reduce uncertainty, not increase it!

so, if the buyer agrees to pay £250k and then the lender says, actually, we have looked into your finances and (for whatever reason) we won't lend you the money, or all the money, that buyer should be forced to still buy the property right? No, it will just fall through and the moral seller is shafted.

Not shafted - they remarket, however many sellers want people who make offers to be proceedable - reduces the risk. Same as not entering agreements with people who gazunder - reduces the risk, doesn't reduce it to zero but does reduce the potential problems. Some people are willing to take the increased risk of dealing with someone like that for the increased price, some are not.

what a crock.

until contracts are exchanged the seller should be open to all offers. You want it off the market - pay something - give a few grand comfort.

Actually the buyer will be putting in something - searches, surveys - all cost money. The seller may well be on a no sale, no fee contract with the conveyancing and isn't putting much into the pot financially until exchange.

Also if I liked the look of a house, made an offer, had it accepted but was told the house would continue to be marketed then I would continue to keep looking at other houses too. A seller might be holding out for a better price but equally a buyer could find a better home, as a seller I don't want to take that risk.

It's not all about money.

No??? why not???? Because you won't be able to walk away scot free?

When we were looking at properties we saw a few interesting ones which were marketed as reverse auctions - the buyer puts down an amount as a non returnable deposit with a guarantee to complete in 4 weeks. All those houses were automatically discounted by us, I would not be prepared to put money down unless the seller also put money down.

Instead of complaining that sellers are not acting in the way that you want them to act, why not find out why you are not being told about these houses becoming available and are just missing them, make sure EAs know you are proceedable and very keen - it's an easy sale for them so they might phone you up first if you are personable and keen.