Are vendors obliged to pass all repossession offers to banks?

robert32

davidmcn wrote: »

Yes, that what I mean by outsourced, they're a separate entity. Not all banks use asset managers, some deal with it in-house. But they're just agents for the bank, they don't own the property.

Because that's what they (might) have agreed with the bank. The local agents are more likely to be on a percentage-based commission.

But in any event, everyone involved wants to sell the property quickly for a reasonable price. Trying to contact somebody else at the bank is only going to irritate them rather than help your case.

Yes, I understand that they don't own the property. Your advice is based on what they "might have agreed with the bank", so do you have any evidence to back this up?


Not necessarily. If the bank are actually willing to accept less, but the vendor is stating otherwise to improve their commission then the bank may well be very interested indeed. In that scenario I couldn't care less about annoying the vendor

robert32

HappyMJ wrote: »

I don't understand this. If the bank has accepted an offer of £450k then your offer must exceed that...not be £10k lower.

Buyer never had funds and pulled-out (agent should never have put offer forward).

Thrugelmir

robert32 wrote: »

Buyer never had funds and pulled-out (agent should never have put offer forward).

That's not an an issue for the lender's agent. Buyer's can pull out any time up until exchange in any event.

davidmcn

robert32 wrote: »

Yes, I understand that they don't own the property.

Well, stop calling them "the vendor" then. The bank is the vendor.

Your advice is based on what they "might have agreed with the bank", so do you have any evidence to back this up?

Yes, but nothing I can post here. I have several years of professional experience selling (and buying) repossessed properties.

Not necessarily. If the bank are actually willing to accept less, but the vendor is stating otherwise to improve their commission then the bank may well be very interested indeed. In that scenario I couldn't care less about annoying the vendor

I have never known that scenario to exist.

Alarae

Vendor in this situation is the bank.
The individual you believe to be the 'vendor' is the asset management company.
Agents are little more than puppets that have to do everything the asset manager says- they have no sway in the matter. Frankly if they irritate me I kick them off marketing and they then don't get paid.

Contrary to what the agent says they have a legal obligation to report all offers to the asset manager (I'm sure someone here can quote the legislation). It may be a case that your lower offer could be accepted if it lies within the asset management's mandate. It may be the case the agent has been told by the asset manager that no offers under the previous offer can be accepted, and they are just relaying that to you, but it shouldn't stop them passing on your offer.

*Based upon my knowledge working as an asset manager working with three well known banks.

SaveSomeMore_2

robert32 wrote: »

Given the regulation around repossession, is the vendor obliged to pass through the offer to the bank?

In short, the estate agents are obligated to pass on all offers to the asset manager hired by the bank. The asset manager makes the decision as to whether this will be accepted.

The bank is actually kept surprisingly (quite alarmingly!) out of the loop with all this, only updated re genuine offers being accepted. The bank does not actually make the decisions to accept sales on an individual basis - they will simply have set a blanket percentage they expect back on possessions depending on how long they are on market (so they may want 100% of value 1 month on market, and then a lower percent a few months down the line if there is no interest).

Is it only just on market? If so if you pay the asking price or about 5% under it should pretty much be yours unless there is competition.

robert32 wrote: »

I know the name of the bank who repossessed the home, so have thought about trying to contact them directly to communicate the offer. Is it worth a try?

You can certainly try. The bank will not accept offers directly, but they take your details and relay it through to the asset manager (usually they will not give you the specifics due to fears around DPA). Alternatively, if you have grounds to suspect foul-play you can raise a complaint through the bank about your offer not being considered/issues with the estate agent (although with how long complaints take to resolve the house will have likely sold before this is resolved!).

HouseBuyer77 wrote: »

The bank have to secure the best offer possible so I'm not sure if they could even legally accept a lower offer unless they could show the higher offer was false or not possible for the person who gave it to carry through.

HappyMJ wrote: »

I don't understand this. If the bank has accepted an offer of £450k then your offer must exceed that...not be £10k lower.

Not necessarily. Asset Managers/banks can and will accept lower offers than the max on the table. It all depends on the strength of the offer/at what stage the possession is/how likely it will complete.

Say a house is on for £450K, the asset manager may take £440k over £450k if the former is a cash buyer and they believe the second buyer isn't as genuine/will have difficulties completing quickly.

What you have to appreciate is whilst the house is sat on market fees (mortgage interest, maintenance charges etc) continually add directly onto the borrower's mortgage (the prior owner who has lost their home). So it can in some select instances be in the repossessed individual's interest for a sale to take place quicker but for a lesser price. Or at least that is what the banks argue!