Be a "qualified" buyer?

strawberries1

Guest101 wrote: »

Offer, in writing, direct to the seller - explaining the agents are turning buyers away...

This was to enable me view a property. I didn't get to view it as she said viewing where being organised only for buyers who had seen Bairstow Eves MA Country Wide and only if they didn't offer will those who haven't seen their MA get to view.

Guest101

strawberries1 wrote: »

This was to enable me view a property. I didn't get to view it as she said viewing where being organised only for buyers who had seen Bairstow Eves MA Country Wide and only if they didn't offer will those who haven't seen their MA get to view.

Well I'd still write to seller, just incase they never knew this

ash28

When we sold our house we used a local EA, he asked us at the outset if we wanted offers from "proceedable" or "qualified" buyers only. This meant that a buyer had to have sold their existing property and have finances in place before an offer was put forward. We did, as there were so many properties on the market at pre crisis prices (2011) that some of them would never have sold. We signed a form saying we only wanted offers from qualified buyers.

We had our house priced at a realistic level and didn't want offers from anyone not in a position to proceed, either financially or because they hadn't sold their own house.

We also had to show that we were able to proceed when we offered on a property. This was done by the vendor's EA ringing our EA and confirming that our house was sold to a proceedable buyer and that we had our finances in place.

We didn't need a mortgage but I know our buyer sourced their own mortgage while their buyers were first time buyers and got their mortgage through the bank one of their mothers worked for.

However, anyone could view the house, it was only when if came to making an offer that we wanted buyers who could proceed. Our buyers hadn't sold their house when they viewed ours but when they offered on ours 2 weeks later they had.

princeofpounds

There have been a few threads recently on Bairstow Eves/countrywide... Personally I would never use them to sell knowing that they are putting such barriers up for their own advantage.

When we sold our house we used a local EA, he asked us at the outset if we wanted offers from "proceedable" or "qualified" buyers only.

Yes proceedable buyers is the norm, but many estate agents take it much further than they have any right to do. They insist on you seeing their in house MA, which is not necessary at all (proceedability is a very simple check with no professional skill required). The MAs then try to get information from you above and beyond that required to establish proceedability. So they can try to sell you their financial products or screw you in negotiations.

This seems to have become so common, it's a shame nothing is being done about it. In the financial services world this sort of conflict of interest would be stamped on quickly.

ACG

ash28 wrote: »

When we sold our house we used a local EA, he asked us at the outset if we wanted offers from "proceedable" or "qualified" buyers only. This meant that a buyer had to have sold their existing property and have finances in place before an offer was put forward. We did, as there were so many properties on the market at pre crisis prices (2011) that some of them would never have sold. We signed a form saying we only wanted offers from qualified buyers.

Thats all well and good, but having an agreement in principle from L&C, the bank, another mortgage advisor or countrywide should make no difference - they all amount to the same thing.

Estate agents are effectively abusing their position and blackmailing people. Im all for competition on an open playing field but many estate agents are not playing the game.

mgarl10024

I tend to take a different view to most on this thread (which probably means I'm wrong! ). I think I've written about this before on here too.

When buying our current property, the EA said about being "qualified" and seeing their in-house mortgage advisor. We already had an independent mortgage advisor and everything ready.
My initial reaction was to tell the EA to clear off. However, the market was competitive, and buyers were swarming. What I remembered was that the EA is the 'gate keeper' for information - it is through them that you are represented to the seller, and like it or not, they can paint differing pictures of you.
So, lets say you are awkward with them. Then, you and another buyer offer the same amount. Who do you reckon the EA is going to suggest to the vendor that they take more seriously?
Instead, we sat down with the in-house mortgage advisor, like good little lambs (:A), and answered all of their questions - safe in the knowledge that (unless they came up with something blinding) we had no intention of taking our their products.
The only cost to this was another credit record hit, but I felt that was a risk worth taking.

ACG

Would you have thought that had you then applied to your original lender and they declined you due to the number of credit searches?

The problem is, you as a buyer should not have to do that. You are effectively being bullied.

If you want to see their broker fine, but if you have made arrangements elsewhere and are happy with that and they are doing nothing different to what you already have they are abusing their position. They are also potentially having a detrimental effect on your original Decision in principle which does not help you them or the vendor.

mgarl10024

ACG wrote: »

The problem is, you as a buyer should not have to do that. You are effectively being bullied.

Oh yes - I totally agree. I'm not defending the practice - as far as I'm concerned it stank.

I'm just offering what I felt was a pragmatic solution. By all means challenge it after you're in the house. Just also be aware that refusing or making waves at the time could cause immediate risks to your purchase if you irritate the Estate Agent.

princeofpounds

It's not a harmless burden at all.

That extra credit search can torpedo the conversion of a pre-existing AIP into a firm mortgage offer.

If the sale falls through and you need to refresh your AIP, likewise.

Furthermore, those innocuous little questions establish your financial position, which betrays your entire negotiating position to the seller (in theory it should not, but we all know the industry stinks in this point). That doesn't matter so much in a weak market, but in a strong market it means you get squeezed.

Plus, it's a plain old waste of time. I don't know how much yours is worth but I wouldn't want to take a half day holiday just to waste it on turning up to stonewall a mortgage advisor in person. That costs me a hundred quid at least in lost time.

Richard_Webster

Obviously EAs do try to get you to use their financial services and want details of your resources which could hinder you in negotiations later.

However, think of it from the seller's point of view. Would you think much of your EA if he provided a buyer who couldn't get a mortgage or hadn't sold his own house or needed to borrow the deposit (with resulting mortgage refusal down the track)?

This is an area where I think some of the cheap on-line agents, or websites that claim to take the place of agents, fall down. They don't check such matters.

I've had to look at clients' bank statements etc (for anti-money laundering purposes) and have sometimes been asked by the client to certify to an EA that I have checked and am satisfied they are able to provide the difference between the price and the required mortgage.