Agent wants to " substantiate" our offer before he puts it to vendor?

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

kingstreet wrote: »

The three EAs I worked for in the 1990s wouldn't have submitted the offer without qualifying it first.

Qualification was a two minute phone call back then and my response to the negotiator would have been a yes or a no and not details of what I thought the potential purchaser could afford or be dragged up to...

As a vendor, if you got an acceptable offer then three days later your EA had to come back and tell you it was a non-starter for financial reasons, wouldn't you ask why they didn't check that in the first place?

I would.

I don't like what goes on, particularly amongst the national chain estate agents who seem to think every sale is their god-given opportunity to flog every over-priced crappy service they can shove down throat of buyer and seller.

The EA Act requires replacement.

Sorry, yes...a two minute phone call where I have said "Yes, I have the money, I have x deposit and the mortgage is less than 3 times my salary", this I have had and don't object to. But EAs have taken my word for it.

SuzieSue

I wish more vendors would find out the EA's policy on "qualifying" buyers before deciding to sell through them.

We deliberately advertised our property with the only EA we saw who didn't force potential buyers to see their in-house MA.

teffers

A similar situation happened to me.

Surely the time to 'qualify' an offer is immediately after it's been accepted and before the property is marked STC ? That way the vendor doesn't lose out in any way and the price has been agreed (subject to survey).

I took the EA broker call but just refused to give any sensitive (to the sale) details explaining I had my lender / broker in place.

Surrey_EA

SuzieSue wrote: »

I wish more vendors would find out the EA's policy on "qualifying" buyers before deciding to sell through them.

We deliberately advertised our property with the only EA we saw who didn't force potential buyers to see their in-house MA.

Sadly for many sellers the only criteria that is important when choosing an EA is how highly they price the property, and how low the fee is.

DandelionPatrol

teffers wrote: »

A similar situation happened to me.

Surely the time to 'qualify' an offer is immediately after it's been accepted and before the property is marked STC ? That way the vendor doesn't lose out in any way and the price has been agreed (subject to survey).

I took the EA broker call but just refused to give any sensitive (to the sale) details explaining I had my lender / broker in place.

I agree with the above, but kingstreet does raise an objection

kingstreet wrote: »

As a vendor, if you got an acceptable offer then three days later your EA had to come back and tell you it was a non-starter for financial reasons, wouldn't you ask why they didn't check that in the first place?

I would.

The agent should be passing on the offer and saying that the buyer will be qualified if the offer is acceptable.

teffers

Kingstreet's the expert but I just feel if it's done at the offer stage, it's even more open to abuse from the EA who may (read= do) use it as a mechanism to sell their broker services, which is fine (selling broker services), but not if it's at the expense of putting the offer to the vendor.

In fast paced markets like London et al, I can see this being a really useful tool for EAs.

kingstreet

If you're an EA with three offers on the same property, some form of qualification has to be done before they are put forward; if for no other purpose than to be able to report which offerer is in a better position.

Are people really telling me as a vendor they would actually expect/want their EA to call them and say "we've had an offer from XYZ of £k" and for the EA to be unable to answer if you asked them if the purchaser was financially proceedable?

IME vendors expect when an offer is put forward that the EA has;-

checked the proceedability - ie FTB/No Chain etc
financially able (mortgage in place and necessary deposit)
nothing to inhibit being able to exchange contracts in a reasonable time.

DandelionPatrol

kingstreet wrote: »

If you're an EA with three offers on the same property, some form of qualification has to be done before they are put forward; if for no other purpose than to be able to report which offerer is in a better position.

Are people really telling me as a vendor they would actually expect/want their EA to call them and say "we've had an offer from XYZ of £k" and for the EA to be unable to answer if you asked them if the purchaser was financially proceedable?

IME vendors expect when an offer is put forward that the EA has;-

checked the proceedability - ie

1. FTB/No Chain etc
2. financially able (mortgage in place and necessary deposit)
3. nothing to inhibit being able to exchange contracts in a reasonable time.

Vendors and buyers are not separate races. Nearly every vendor will have been a purchaser at some point.

Vendors will therefore be aware of the tensions over this question, because they will usually be on the other end of it for their onward purchase.

As vendor, I would expect answers to 1 and 3 above, but I would be absolutely livid if I had a note pushed through my door from a buyer saying that the agent had refused to pass on my offer because they did not want to speak to a mortgage advisor. [Livid at the agent, not the pusher of the note, if that is not clear].

So I would quite accept that the agent would not be able to verify finances prior to me saying whether the offer was acceptable. In such circumstances, I think it should be the norm for vendors to accept offers 'subject to proof of finance'.

kingstreet

I would be absolutely livid if I had a note pushed through my door from a buyer saying that the agent had refused to pass on my offer because they did not want to speak to a mortgage advisor

Putting words in my mouth here...?

I would not, under any circumstances advocate/accept an EA refuse to submit an offer because the offerer refused to speak to the EA's FA/MA.

A negotiator can do a simple qualification at offer stage and establish what percentage of deposit is available and if an AIP has been obtained.

Therefore some form of qualification prior to submission of offer is eminently sensible and possible and it was never necessary to speak to anyone "financial" before an offer is put forward.

That is the abuse of the system I referred to earlier. EAs using the Act to suit their objectives, rather than properly represent their client's.

As I said, the EA Act is silent on what constitutes a "financial qualification" and when it comes to EAs if anyone thinks I'm some kind of cheerleader for them, you can think again.

Independent mortgage brokers probably suffer at their hands as often as do those wanting to go direct to HSBC...

DandelionPatrol

kingstreet wrote: »

Putting words in my mouth here...?

I would not, under any circumstances advocate/accept an EA refuse to submit an offer because the offerer refused to speak to the EA's FA/MA.

A negotiator can do a simple qualification at offer stage and establish what percentage of deposit is available and if an AIP has been obtained.

Therefore some form of qualification prior to submission of offer is eminently sensible and possible and it was never necessary to speak to anyone "financial" before an offer is put forward.

That is the abuse of the system I referred to earlier. EAs using the Act to suit their objectives, rather than properly represent their client's.

As I said, the EA Act is silent on what constitutes a "financial qualification" and when it comes to EAs if anyone thinks I'm some kind of cheerleader for them, you can think again.

Independent mortgage brokers probably suffer at their hands as often as do those wanting to go direct to HSBC...

I think what you have described there is the reasonable and acceptable bounds of qualification of offers.