Dodgy auction - any grounds for complaint?

DandelionPatrol

kinger101 wrote: »

It's an interesting point, but you've used an extreme example to illustrate this. In reality, the sisters' bid may have been say 2% above the previous bid rather the 35%. This strongly diminishes the benefit of having the leverage.

Sisters' bid may indeed have been just 2% above the previous bidder, but according to OP the final 2 went a long way bidding against each other. If it was DiL's rep [or her shill] vs the sisters, even the DiL would have had some leverage

Thrugelmir wrote: »

That's a nonsensical assumption to a calculation on. What ever else may have occurred the OP was well and truly outbid.

Oh, you do like to stop people thinking aloud don't you? You did see that little word 'IF' didn't you? That meant that it was the introduction of a possibility, rather than a flat statement of what happened.

Taken as I mean it, there is nothing nonsensical about it at all. Rather than an analysis of an auction for which we have no figures, it is an illustration of leverage at work showing how an eyewatering premium could be sustained by the sisters while themselves paying a quite conscionable premium.

If the bidding was the sisters vs the DiL's rep [DiL may have wanted to buy?], then there could easily have been an eyewatering premium.

I started posting before OP told us the actual figures, of course. It seems that the actual premium could have been 17.5%.

I don't so much have a problem with the amount it went for and the fact that OP did not get it. It is that they incurred legal fees in an auction where the field was not level and you might hope that there would be some declaration of the interests of the sisters and perhaps the DiL

kinger101

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

Sisters' bid may indeed have been just 2% above the previous bidder, but according to OP the final 2 went a long way bidding against each other. If it was DiL's rep [or her shill] vs the sisters, even the DiL would have had some leverage


Oh, you do like to stop people thinking aloud don't you? You did see that little word 'IF' didn't you? That meant that it was the introduction of a possibility, rather than a flat statement of what happened.

Taken as I mean it, there is nothing nonsensical about it at all. Rather than an analysis of an auction for which we have no figures, it is an illustration of leverage at work showing how an eyewatering premium could be sustained by the sisters while themselves paying a quite conscionable premium.

If the bidding was the sisters vs the DiL's rep [DiL may have wanted to buy?], then there could easily have been an eyewatering premium.

I started posting before OP told us the actual figures, of course. It seems that the actual premium could have been 17.5%.

I don't so much have a problem with the amount it went for and the fact that OP did not get it. It is that they incurred legal fees in an auction where the field was not level and you might hope that there would be some declaration of the interests of the sisters and perhaps the DiL

If it were me, I'd have like an heads-up that the current part owners might also be bidding. But unless we can demonstrate there was some legal obligation to declare this, I can't see anything wrong. We don't have anything other than EA gossip to substantiate the shill bidder claim. More likely, if the SIL also wanted the property, she may have appointed a proxy to not alert the sisters that she was also bidding. Or it could have just been an unrelated party.

I'm still perplexed as to how they managed to spend £750 going over a legal pack. It's not even a competitive quote for conveyancing.

getmore4less

With probate and divorce property unless you know otherwise you assume there are multiple owners that may not agree and one or more will be in the market to obtain the property.

It can happen with any sale method not just auction.

Even if you know there is a part owner interested you still don't know if they will stop at around a true market value or just be silly and pay anything for the place.

The leverage case only exists in peoples head because they don't see the bit they own already as real money eg. the sisters would only see 1/3 of each increased bid.

sly_dog_jonah

To clarify a few points:

1) there were plenty of bidders up to around 600k as I recall, when all but 2 dropped out. The remaining two bidders were the winners (2 sisters who owned 2/3 of the property), who bid 705k against a couple (who we are told) were connected to the other owner of the property - but who were not there to bid on her behalf, only to maximise the final price, and hence maximise the 1/3 share for that owner. If true, this is illegal. Hard to prove though I admit, as it appears the auctioneers took no details from any interested bidders prior to the auction. Had the shill's pushed the sisters too far and ended up winning, I imagine there would have been a re-run of the auction there and then due to lack of funds from the shills.

2) the auction was for 3 lots, including 2 parcels of land and a property with an 'interesting' history shall we say, complicated planning constraints and a question mark over access. This is why the legal packs took several hours' of a trusted senior conveyancer, which included considerable chasing of the vendors solicitor for missing information and clarifications. We don't feel 'robbed' by our solicitor by any means, and it was a gamble worth paying we felt even though there was a fair chance we would miss out to another bidder.

3) We could have bid for the 3 lots as a whole, but we were hopeful of the combined auction not meeting whatever reserve there was and then being divided to 2 lots with a separate auction. So we sat on our hands rather than pushing the price up quickly.

4) The legal pack delays was probably down to the vendors (can tell from the dates on the various docs), and it is unsurprising that 2 of the 3 owners may have been holding things up to put potential competition off (minimising time to query issues, or seek professional advice).

5) At no point did the EA, Auctioneer (one in the same) nor the vendor's solicitors declare that any of the co-owners had any interest in purchasing the property. Had we known this, we wouldn't have bothered forking out for the professional advice (nor would we have bid).

6) The EA we learned this from is not the same EA as was marketing the property last year. It's the EA with whom either or both the vendors are considering re-marketing the property through. We've confirmed the transaction details through a land registry lookup.

lincroft1710

It is not the norm for auctioneers to give out information about potential bidders.