Puzzled by 'Offers Over'

ReadingTim

Car1980 wrote: »

Meaningless phrase. Completely ignore

Problem is, it may mean something to the vendors - usually something along the lines of "Completely ignore offers below..."

Unless of course you mean completely ignore the property, which I'd agree with - that phrase, along with offers in excess of, offers in region of, guide price, modern auction method, buyer's incentive usually indicate problematic properties or vendors or both...

00ec25

house buying is one of the few areas in UK society where both the buyer and the seller do not expect to pay the ticket price and therefore both expect to haggle. As a society "we" are not good at haggling and so a few fudges have appeared to "guide" those trying to do it, offers over being a clear example.

the buyer wants to feel they got a "bargain", a key part of that psychology will be the size of the "discount" they achieved against asking price. The fact that the asking price is simply a made up number does not affect the degree of happiness the buyer experiences when they get below it. The obverse obviously applies for the seller. they fell ripped off if they were "forced" to give a big "discount" because they failed as hagglers.

offers over gives a precise(?) idea of the bottom line of the vendor. They will not discount below that figure. patently though it does not say what is their actual asking price, and therefore show what level of discount they genuinely expect to have to settle for when striking the deal.

As you have now found out, the psychology of your vendors is that they want to make it look as though the price of their property is "cheap" compared to its competitors so they have "dropped" the price by 20k. A classic marketing tactic to stimulate "new" interest as it now appears on the lists of those looking at a 170k ceiling. Whereas, in reality, they have not moved one inch on their expectation of final price, but have indicated a stop line at 170k. As a buyer you thus now know that you have potentially a 20K margin to haggle in.

However, people being people, the vendors have been told the house is "worth" 190k and thus feel failures for not selling it at that price, despite the fact time demonstrates only too clearly that buyers think that is too much to pay and none have shown interest in it at such a level. Your vendor's psychology therefore suggests they remain totally disconnected from reality and unlikely to accept a "low" price even if they have indicated 20k "off" is their stop line. It looks like it most certainly is not and they still want as close to 190k as they can get

so from a psychological position you have 2 choices:
- play the game and start haggling. Either you or the vendor will feel you come out as "winner". (BTW unless you work in the building trade, your idea as a FTB that it will "cost" 20k to modernise the property is no closer to reality than the vendor's insistence that the property is "worth" 190k. Both of you are deluded)
or
- buy somewhere else that is indeed "realistically" priced in the 170k -
190k range where the vendor knows that the haggle means they will not get the actual asking price

theartfullodger

You are legally permitted to offer any price you choose (e.g. £1..).

The vendor is permitted to accept, or not, such price as he chooses (discrimination legislation excepted...)

ReadingTim

theartfullodger wrote: »

The vendor is permitted to accept, or not, such price as he chooses (discrimination legislation excepted...)

Tell me more about this "discrimination legislation" as it applies to house buying...namely how a person's gender, race, religious background or sexual orientation is in any way relevant to, let alone more important than the price they offer?

HGW2012

[/QUOTE]- play the game and start haggling. Either you or the vendor will feel you come out as "winner". (BTW unless you work in the building trade, your idea as a FTB that it will "cost" 20k to modernise the property is no closer to reality than the vendor's insistence that the property is "worth" 190k. Both of you are deluded)
or
- buy somewhere else that is indeed "realistically" priced in the 170k -
190k range where the vendor knows that the haggle means they will not get the actual asking price[/QUOTE]

My husband does, the property is 12 years old not falling to bits it needs paint and a kitchen and bathroom all of which could be completed for 20k.

Please don't mistake 'FTB' for deluded and naive. Not all 'FTB' have zero clue about buying property and how much money would be required to bring it up to speck and make money.

But thanks for your input.

HGW2012

We put a offer in on a property, it was offers over £170k offered £170k was rejected, saying vendor wanted more near £180k.

Been up for 8 months originally £200k but then dropped to £170k. No other offers at all in this time apparently.

EA told us 2 other offers at £170k 1 of which had backed out, leaving us and another buyer.

We wanted the house so went in at £180k only for the EA to come back and say the other buyer has put in a extra £500 and do we want to up the offer.
We declined and said the £180k stands and we will not go higher. EA said vendor will go away and think about it.

Not sure what is to think about?
Oh and conveniently the other buyer is a cash buyer.
Why would EA not just say sorry higher offer cash buyer.

I feel like they are trying to get more out of us even though we offered what he wanted!

HGW2012

Just to say time between offer;

Made a offer the day after viewing, which was declined.
Waited a day then made the full and final.

Someone mentioned on my other thread that they are just trying to get the highest amount which of course I understand but surly if there is a cash buyer whats £500, bit risky IMO for the vendor to try and get the cash bidder to up by £500.

It's a second property that had a tenant and no longer does so the vendor is obviously paying a mortgage on it now the rent is not being paid.

Should the EA be telling all the bidders what everyone else has offered?

Slinky

HGW2012 wrote: »

It's a second property that had a tenant and no longer does so the vendor is obviously paying a mortgage on it now the rent is not being paid.

The vendor may own the property outright and not be paying a mortgage on it.

hazyjo

HGW2012 wrote: »

Should the EA be telling all the bidders what everyone else has offered?

Yes, they are legally obliged to - unless the vendors have told them not to put forward offers below X amount.

Crashy_Time

No offers, no tenants? They are desperate by now, offer 150k.