Gazumpers- SO RUDE!!!!

moneyistooshorttomention

Davesnave wrote: »

I think it's quite hard sometimes to put a value on a particular property, so the market often decides. Inevitably, people may have their fingers burned, so long as the buying system remains as it is.

Ours is like that, which is probably why an attempt was made to gazump us quite late in the day. It didn't succeed because the vendor was in a hurry to sell, but otherwise it might have done.

From a cool-headed, purely economic point of view, I think we paid the right price, but with my emotional hat on, I can see why we might easily have paid 10%-15% more.

That's one advantage of not "loving" a house you decide to purchase then Dave:rotfl:.

I knew to the penny what would be a fair price to pay for my current house - and that's what I paid - to the penny.

But someone would strike very lucky if I had that lottery win we all want on a house I have my eye on back in Home Area - I reckon its priced at at least £30,000 more than its proper value - but its exactly where I want my house to be....so:eek: - and I'd pay it if I had to (and could...:() - assuming its not sold yet (and it aint got "sold STC" on it...so presumably its still available).

rosie383

Surely there should be something in the EAs' code of conduct that they shouldn't try to persuade a vendor to gazump? It does happen, happened to us recently. I was shocked and frankly disgusted.

moneyistooshorttomention

jjlandlord wrote: »

:rotfl:

As I said: rationalisation.

Ognum would have been in no obligation to continue with the purchase.

He wasn't under a legal obligation - but he had made an agreement and was therefore under a moral obligation to do so. But the vendor "cut the cords" on that moral obligation by trying to do the dirty on him.

That meant Ognum was perfectly free at that point to do "hell hath no fury..." and make a "business decision" to buy the better place.

ognum

Davesnave wrote: »

I think it's quite hard sometimes to put a value on a particular property, so the market often decides. Inevitably, people may have their fingers burned, so long as the buying system remains as it is.

Ours is like that, which is probably why an attempt was made to gazump us quite late in the day. It didn't succeed because the vendor was in a hurry to sell, but otherwise it might have done.

From a cool-headed, purely economic point of view, I think we paid the right price, but with my emotional hat on, I can see why we might easily have paid 10%-15% more.

Would it actually matter if you paid 10% more in a rising market. Of the properties I own not one is the same value as I paid for it. They have all risen in value, of course they could fall but as long as you don't have an enormous debt why worry

ognum

jjlandlord wrote: »

:rotfl:

As I said: rationalisation.

Ognum would have been in no obligation to continue with the purchase.

The truth for me is that if the first vendor hadn't done the dirty I probably wouldn't have looked.

If I had looked and found something better and cheaper I would probably have gone for it.

For me it was a buisness transaction and I would not have disadvantaged my self by £30k willingly. Would you?

jjlandlord

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

He wasn't under a legal obligation - but he had made an agreement and was therefore under a moral obligation to do so. But the vendor "cut the cords" on that moral obligation by trying to do the dirty on him.

Of course here is no moral obligation...

What agreement could there be? An agreement to carry on with the sale process, but no more.
Oh but a better property popped so the buyer did not in fact carry on.
That's life. There is no need to invent 'reasons' why it was acceptable to withdraw.

ognum wrote: »

If I had looked and found something better and cheaper I would probably have gone for it.

For me it was a buisness transaction and I would not have disadvantaged my self by £30k willingly. Would you?

Of course not.
And all the 'moralists' here would have done the same.

moneyistooshorttomention

rosie383 wrote: »

Surely there should be something in the EAs' code of conduct that they shouldn't try to persuade a vendor to gazump? It does happen, happened to us recently. I was shocked and frankly disgusted.

Should be...but I cant see it happening any time soon.

I think the only protection a buyer has if they can see for themselves that the house they are interested in has been placed with a genuinely ethical estate agent.

That was part of my reasoning on choosing the EA I did to sell my last house - as it was obvious they are genuinely ethical and I thought this would convey the message to would-be buyers of "I don't intend to play games - and I don't expect you to either" and might make my house seem a more attractive proposition than an exactly equivalent house placed with a more "standard" EA iyswim.

As a strategy - I think it worked actually. From my position as a seller too, I didn't spot any attempt at games-playing other than the fact I knew my buyer had spotted my house at Day 1 it came on the market, but was deliberately waiting and hoping for a price chop (it didn't work....:)).

moneyistooshorttomention

jjlandlord wrote: »

Of course here is no moral obligation...

What agreement could there be? An agreement to carry on with the sale process, but no more.
Oh but a better property popped so the buyer did not in fact carry on.
That's life. There is no need to invent 'reasons' why it was acceptable to withdraw.



Of course not.
And all the 'moralists' here would have done the same.

Nope....I don't think so. I cant speak for anyone else here - but an agreement is an agreement as far as I am concerned. Mind you....if someone breaks an agreement with me then "hell hath no fury" and the phrase "Don't mess with Money:rotfl:" has been heard more than once...(ie by people who are killing themselves laughing because someone did so...and they witnessed my 'reply' to it.....).

Davesnave

ognum wrote: »

Would it actually matter if you paid 10% more in a rising market.

Every property and situation is different. It was actually a falling market at the time; at the bottom, but no one knows where that is until later!

This was a long term home, or a short term learning experience, and we didn't know which.

As a long term home, being short of, say, £35k, would have made quite a difference to our ability to renovate; itself something hard to put a figure on. We're on a fixed income with no real prospect of saving more.

As a short term parking place for capital, buying high would have been risky. Property prices here didn't see significant growth until about 5 years from our purchase. Indeed, we know people currently struggling to achieve what they paid in 2008.

ognum

Davesnave wrote: »

Every property and situation is different. It was actually a falling market at the time; at the bottom, but no one knows where that is until later!

This was a long term home, or a short term learning experience, and we didn't know which.

As a long term home, being short of, say, £35k, would have made quite a difference to our ability to renovate; itself something hard to put a figure on. We're on a fixed income with no real prospect of saving more.

As a short term parking place for capital, buying high would have been risky. Property prices here didn't see significant growth until about 5 years from our purchase. Indeed, we know people currently struggling to achieve what they paid in 2008.

Good point, every purchase and very area is different.