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

Joskat

We saw the house wanted, put an offer in the same morning as the viewing. By lunchtime the offer had been accepted and our proof of funds had been emailed to EA. Sorted in less than 3 hrs. Wouldn't have given any financial details until offer had been accepted.

marksoton

Out of 6 EA's i saw 3 who tried pushing broker services etc hard ( All nationals ) I simply walked away before we'd even started.

As buyer i may not be their client but i still expect them to behave in a certain manner.

OP, just stand firm,and if they do keep pushing i'd consider walking away. Do you really want to be dealing with these people further down the line?

HenBroon

Thanks to everyone for your helpful comments, particularly *Kingstreet* with his/ her broker's perspective.

What I don't get is how just telling the EA or a broker about approval in principle is any use to the vendor since the broker who got us the AIP hasn't seen the actual evidence of our deposit and salaries yet and, as a very astute poster pointed up thread pointed out, no way am I going to give that information to an agent working for the other side.

*Kingstreet* you were clear that all you would say to the agent was yes or no, and would not comment on how much more we could stretch to. That makes sense because as a mortgage broker I the buyer am your client and you have a duty to me now, regardless of being tied in some way to the EA, correct?
What I object to is the way that they basically hold out their mortgage broker as being their agent for the purpose of checking the buyer's bona fides but at the same time want us to use that agent to get us a mortgage.

By the way I have indeed been a vendor before and they never purported to give me any assurances about the vendor's financial position, beyond a brief description of who he was (a father buying the flat for his daughter).

Anyway the broker called today and spoke briefly to my husband and asked us to send him a copy of the AIP to him. Broker spoke as if on behalf of EA re "company policy" on passing on offers. Sending the AIP U.S. Fine but I would prefer to send it straight to the agent. If they ask for anything

kinger101

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

I disagree with this. If it's a case of sealed bids, then yes. But if it's just a case of a single offer, the qualification doesn't need to happen until the offer is accepted. I sent mine the minute after I got a phone call indicating the vendor decided I'd made an acceptable offer, and made I clear I'd expect the status to be shown as SSTC after that.

In summary -

Buyer makes offer
Vendor provisionally accepts offer if price is right
Buyer sends proof of funds/mortgage etc.
Property is taken off market.

Until the buyer is able to provide proof on funds, the property stays on the market.

marksoton

kinger101 wrote: »

I disagree with this. If it's a case of sealed bids, then yes. But if it's just a case of a single offer, the qualification doesn't need to happen until the offer is accepted. I sent mine the minute after I got a phone call indicating the vendor decided I'd made an acceptable offer, and made I clear I'd expect the status to be shown as SSTC after that.

In summary -

Buyer makes offer
Vendor provisionally accepts offer if price is right
Buyer sends proof of funds/mortgage etc.
Property is taken off market.

Until the buyer is able to provide proof on funds, the property stays on the market.

But as vendor ( Which i have never been ) I'd probably want to know at least a bit about the other factors.

What the buyers status is ( FTB/cash buyer/Chain)
If anything would impede my own timeline.

All three together give you a good idea of what to expect before taking your property off the market. The first on its own doesn't.

At the end of the day the vendor can sell to who they choose, and i'd expect most would take the route of least resistance.

But in this case it sounds like the OP is being played by the EA.

kinger101

marksoton wrote: »

But as vendor ( Which i have never been ) I'd probably want to know at least a bit about the other factors.

What the buyers status is ( FTB/cash buyer/Chain)
If anything would impede my own timeline.

All three together give you a good idea of what to expect before taking your property off the market. The first on its own doesn't.

At the end of the day the vendor can sell to who they choose, and i'd expect most would take the route of least resistance.

But in this case it sounds like the OP is being played by the EA.

Absolutely. The EA (and therefore vendor) should know this before the potential buyer has even viewed the property. And the property doesn't need to come off the market until the buyer's financials have been validated. It's the way it seems to work in the North anyway. I've had a few EAs try to push me to see their broker, but not have forced me to, or asked to AIPs/deposit confirmation before putting an offer to the vendor. The exception to this is when I've been in a sealed bids process, but that's understandable.

kingstreet

HenBroon wrote: »

*Kingstreet* you were clear that all you would say to the agent was yes or no, and would not comment on how much more we could stretch to. That makes sense because as a mortgage broker I the buyer am your client and you have a duty to me now, regardless of being tied in some way to the EA, correct?

Even when I was sitting in an EA's office, my objective of a qualification was to ensure the purchaser was "ready and able to proceed quickly to unconditional exchange of contracts" and that is a closed question with a one word answer, yes or no.

I did not view myself as there to help vendors achieve higher prices. That was the negotiator's role.

As any purchaser I spoke to had the potential to become my client, their personal information remained confidential as I was the agent of the purchaser, while the EA was the agent of the vendor.

martindow

kingstreet wrote: »

Even when I was sitting in an EA's office, my objective of a qualification was to ensure the purchaser was "ready and able to proceed quickly to unconditional exchange of contracts" and that is a closed question with a one word answer, yes or no.

I did not view myself as there to help vendors achieve higher prices. That was the negotiator's role.

As any purchaser I spoke to had the potential to become my client, their personal information remained confidential as I was the agent of the purchaser, while the EA was the agent of the vendor.

I'm interested in the arrangement here. Did you act in a freelance capacity here with a sharing of the broker's fee paid by the lender? Or were you employed by the EA on a salary plus possible bonuses?

I think that if you are in the office regularly, although you would be scrupulous with the details of a possible buyer's finances, people in the office are likely to pick up a good idea of whether the buyer could be squeezed for a higher price from casual comments or your body language.

kingstreet

I worked for the EA.

I had a permanent desk in the office concerned.

I respected the chinese walls which existed between the different functions/roles and the agency staff respected that I would not help them get more for the property.

I'm not sure those walls are respected these days.

Surrey_EA

martindow wrote: »

I think that if you are in the office regularly, although you would be scrupulous with the details of a possible buyer's finances, people in the office are likely to pick up a good idea of whether the buyer could be squeezed for a higher price from casual comments or your body language.

Whether a buyer pays £245k or £250k makes practically no difference to the EA, confirmation that they're able to make the purchase at all is far more important.