purplebricks

jimpix12

I always thought that purplebricks etc made the vendors take their own photos, going by the awful quality of them. But it seems they have their own 'professional' photographer!

If I was going to use an online agent I'd fork out £300 to get some really decent photos done as that always seems to be the weak link.

Innys1

spunko2010 wrote: »

I always thought that purplebricks etc made the vendors take their own photos, going by the awful quality of them. But it seems they have their own 'professional' photographer!

If I was going to use an online agent I'd fork out £300 to get some really decent photos done as that always seems to be the weak link.

I used the camera on my Samsung Galaxy S4. The house was let in 8 days.

As I said before, if the house is lettable/sellable, you really don't need the fripperies.

Vectis

Innys1 wrote: »

No one, in any business, should be asking for money up front...

Really? So if you were running a business you'd be happy for your customers to walk off with the goods on the promise of paying you in a few months time? Somehow I don't think so!

Innys1

Vectis wrote: »

Really? So if you were running a business you'd be happy for your customers to walk off with the goods on the promise of paying you in a few months time? Somehow I don't think so!

You know what I meant.

DJ_Mike

Innys1 wrote: »

You know what I meant.

Ignoring the flippancy, why are you so against paying a smaller fee up front than a larger commission? "No sale, no fee" is overrated - most EAs will try to lock you into a contract that says they can bill you if they simply found you a buyer, regardless of whether you chose to accept (and you might not, if the offer was too low). Obviously you can try to argue that out of the contract, but most probably won't.

If you're in an area where property is easy to shift, why spend all that extra money on commission when you could save so much by paying up front? Some online agents will go on a commission basis - but they charge more for it.

Innys1

DJ_Mike wrote: »

Ignoring the flippancy, why are you so against paying a smaller fee up front than a larger commission? "No sale, no fee" is overrated - most EAs will try to lock you into a contract that says they can bill you if they simply found you a buyer, regardless of whether you chose to accept (and you might not, if the offer was too low). Obviously you can try to argue that out of the contract, but most probably won't.

If you're in an area where property is easy to shift, why spend all that extra money on commission when you could save so much by paying up front? Some online agents will go on a commission basis - but they charge more for it.

To be clear, I don't use agents to buy and sell, generally, I use them to find tenants for letting purposes.

There's an easy way to avoid being locked into an unfavourable contract - read it before you sign it? If you don't like what you see refuse.

There's two reasons I object to paying up front;

1) Cashflow. If the house is difficult to let, you could be waiting ages, and all the while your fee is in the agent's bank account, not yours.

2) If the agent goes belly up while holding your fee, expect to join the (probably) long queue of unsecured creditors. No thanks.

DJ_Mike

Innys1 wrote: »

There's an easy way to avoid being locked into an unfavourable contract - read it before you sign it? If you don't like what you see refuse.

And if you don't have a choice?

Innys1 wrote: »

1) Cashflow. If the house is difficult to let, you could be waiting ages, and all the while your fee is in the agent's bank account, not yours.

I would easily pick a lower fee upfront given the cost of commission % would easily outweigh anything I'd get for keeping it in my bank account.

Innys1 wrote: »

2) If the agent goes belly up while holding your fee, expect to join the (probably) long queue of unsecured creditors. No thanks.

That's certainly a counterparty risk, but then when you consider everything else that's involved in the buying and selling of a house (which is what we've been discussing), there are plenty of opportunities for other things to go belly up that you've spent money on. It's not really an issue I'd linger on when there's thousands of pounds at stake.

Innys1

DJ_Mike wrote: »

And if you don't have a choice?


I would easily pick a lower fee upfront given the cost of commission % would easily outweigh anything I'd get for keeping it in my bank account.


That's certainly a counterparty risk, but then when you consider everything else that's involved in the buying and selling of a house (which is what we've been discussing), there are plenty of opportunities for other things to go belly up that you've spent money on. It's not really an issue I'd linger on when there's thousands of pounds at stake.

You do know that estate agents aren't an endangered species, don't you? It's not as if you have to look hard to find one. Even if you can't find a local, why not use an online one? I've yet to have employed any agent who I felt provided value for money so you may as well go with the cheap option - online vs high st.

I wasn't talking about interest earned by keeping the fee in my bank account. You don't seem to understand the term "cashflow".

The counterparty risk is, in my view, an unnecessary one to take. By your own admission, there's lots that could go wrong with a sale - why add to that by gambling on the agent still trading by the time the sale completes?

Finally, by paying an agent up front they have little to no incentive for doing any work for you. Worse, as you've said, why would they try and get you the best price they could? They've already been paid so it makes little difference to them.

Kathy2312

I've just sold my house using Purplebricks and did NOT have to pay the £798 upfront. It will be deducted from the proceeds by my solicitor. Perhaps it varies from area to area? I sold my house in just over a week, albeit in a hot-spot area.

On the subject of Online agents versus Traditional agents - it was a complete no-brainer for me, as Purplebricks have provided EXACTLY the same service as an agent charging 1% plus. I have saved about 4.5K.

The downside is that when looking for a property, the traditional agents don't like dealing with buyers who have sold using Online agents - but it didn't stop me finding a property.

Just wanted to set the record straight.

DJ_Mike

Innys1 wrote: »

Finally, by paying an agent up front they have little to no incentive for doing any work for you. Worse, as you've said, why would they try and get you the best price they could? They've already been paid so it makes little difference to them.

I think you have a misguided view on how much incentive estate agents really have to get you the best price - an extra £5k is only worth an extra £50-100 to them, whereas getting you off their books as soon as possible and earning their full commission is worth a great deal more.

Innys1 wrote: »

I wasn't talking about interest earned by keeping the fee in my bank account. You don't seem to understand the term "cashflow".

I know exactly what cashflow is, I just chose to ignore it. If your cashflow in buying and selling houses worth hundreds of thousands of pounds was fragile enough to be affected by an upfront £800 fee, frankly I'd think you were in the wrong business.