selling house by tender, but received no bids

G_M

Wow! Is this a first? Totally unanimity on the property forum thread!

Marmaduke123

Sale by tender is a practice which really needs stopping in its tracks, and only the buyers can do it by refusing to play ball.

Sounds like this has happened in your case. Change agents and sell the conventional way!

TheCyclingProgrammer

dominoman wrote: »

There's no conflict of interest. The agent is working for the seller but is paid a percentage of sale price, regardless of who pays them.

Of course there is a conflict of interest - they are being paid by the buyer but working for the seller. Why would I want to pay somebody who isn't working in my best interests?

pinkteapot

It's not a conflict of interest because the EA makes no claim to be acting in your interests as the buyer. You are paying them to do absolutely nothing for you. That's pretty clear.

TheCyclingProgrammer

pinkteapot wrote: »

You are paying them to do absolutely nothing for you.

And that's their get out clause. Which is exactly why people shouldn't go along with this.

Its essentially a way for sellers to get the buyer to pay their fees but in such a way that there is no transfer of economic value because the debt was never the sellers in the first place (and therefore not adding to the sale price of the house as far as stamp duty is concerned). Potentially a clever stamp duty dodge. I wouldn't be surprised if some EAs sell it as such for properties around stamp duty thresholds.

I'm sure EA contracts are all very carefully worded but I am surprised that HMRC haven't looked into this.

eddddy

G_M wrote: »

Wow! Is this a first? Totally unanimity on the property forum thread!

OK - so I'll buck the trend just a little bit...

The OP hasn't said (yet) that the EA was going to charge a buyer's fee.

'Sale by Tender' has been around since forever - but normally the seller paid the EA fee. It's a new 'strategy', mainly by EAs in the Arun Estates group, to charge a buyer's fee.

So if the EA isn't part of Arun Estates, don't automatically assume that a buyer's fee will be payable.

Annie1960

How long is your contract with the EA? In your place, I would be giving them notice ASAP and starting from scratch with a new EA.

cattie

PasturesNew wrote: »

I'm intrigued/interested: From the seller's point of view, what's the point/benefit of sale by tender?

The seller pays a nominal fee, perhaps £200 to register to have their house listed with the ea & the ea earns their commission from the potential buyers/biddings who have to pay for a tender pack before being allowed to view. As mentioned in many of the posts here, costs are usually in the region of 2% of the selling price. Tends bring the ea many more bucks than they would receive when selling in the more straightforward way & getting commission from the vendor.

The only one to lose out here is the buyer as they need to find more money now if considering anything for sale by tender.

anselld

Glad to hear buyers are voting with their feet against this practice!

OP, what happens next is you sack your current agents and appoint one who will market your property and charge you a fee when they secure a buyer.

MobileSaver

BeauLiLuLu wrote: »

I immediately dismissed any properties 'for sale by tender'....

I wouldn't immediately dismiss a Sale by Tender property but it would be a big negative and so the house would have to be pretty special.

Even then though I would reduce the real price I'd be prepared to pay by the buyer's fee and would absolutely make sure the seller knew what I was doing and why. The sooner sellers learn that this is bad for everyone except the estate agent the better.