Estate agent etiquette

Mickey666

The_Man_In_The_Pub said:

The agent informed me that this is new company policy  

And I'd inform the agent that it is my policy not to reveal how much I have to spend thankyou very much (and if they still refuse, just pop a note through the vendors door).

Honestly. The estate agents must see some of you lot coming!

And I'd inform my agent that it's also MY policy as a seller not to allow non-proceedable persons to view my property.  There would enough details and photos in the EA brochure to satisfy the timewasters and a note through my door would be ignored if I was already signed up to an EA.   Anyone truly serious about buying would not be concerned about providing proof of funds and if they can;t be bothered to provide such info then I can't be bothered to let them wander around my home.

lookstraightahead

Mickey666 said:

The_Man_In_The_Pub said:

The agent informed me that this is new company policy  

And I'd inform the agent that it is my policy not to reveal how much I have to spend thankyou very much (and if they still refuse, just pop a note through the vendors door).

Honestly. The estate agents must see some of you lot coming!

And I'd inform my agent that it's also MY policy as a seller not to allow non-proceedable persons to view my property.  There would enough details and photos in the EA brochure to satisfy the timewasters and a note through my door would be ignored if I was already signed up to an EA.   Anyone truly serious about buying would not be concerned about providing proof of funds and if they can;t be bothered to provide such info then I can't be bothered to let them wander around my home.

How do you provide proof of funds if you need them from the proceeds of your "sold" house before viewing? 

Mickey666

lookstraightahead said:

Mickey666 said:

The_Man_In_The_Pub said:

The agent informed me that this is new company policy  

And I'd inform the agent that it is my policy not to reveal how much I have to spend thankyou very much (and if they still refuse, just pop a note through the vendors door).

Honestly. The estate agents must see some of you lot coming!

And I'd inform my agent that it's also MY policy as a seller not to allow non-proceedable persons to view my property.  There would enough details and photos in the EA brochure to satisfy the timewasters and a note through my door would be ignored if I was already signed up to an EA.   Anyone truly serious about buying would not be concerned about providing proof of funds and if they can;t be bothered to provide such info then I can't be bothered to let them wander around my home.

How do you provide proof of funds if you need them from the proceeds of your "sold" house before viewing? 

Your house equity forms part of your proof, obviously.  Most people need to sell their current house to buy a new one.

"Funds" doesn't necessarily mean cash in the bank account (though it did for the last house I sold!), you just have to be able to show that you can afford your proposed transaction and are not wasting everyone's time.  Could be cash in the bank, could be cash+mortgage only (FTB), could be cash+mortgage+equity, etc

lookstraightahead

Mickey666 said:

lookstraightahead said:

Mickey666 said:

The_Man_In_The_Pub said:

The agent informed me that this is new company policy  

And I'd inform the agent that it is my policy not to reveal how much I have to spend thankyou very much (and if they still refuse, just pop a note through the vendors door).

Honestly. The estate agents must see some of you lot coming!

And I'd inform my agent that it's also MY policy as a seller not to allow non-proceedable persons to view my property.  There would enough details and photos in the EA brochure to satisfy the timewasters and a note through my door would be ignored if I was already signed up to an EA.   Anyone truly serious about buying would not be concerned about providing proof of funds and if they can;t be bothered to provide such info then I can't be bothered to let them wander around my home.

How do you provide proof of funds if you need them from the proceeds of your "sold" house before viewing? 

Your house equity forms part of your proof, obviously.  Most people need to sell their current house to buy a new one.

"Funds" doesn't necessarily mean cash in the bank account (though it did for the last house I sold!), you just have to be able to show that you can afford your proposed transaction and are not wasting everyone's time.  Could be cash in the bank, could be cash+mortgage only (FTB), could be cash+mortgage+equity, etc

Ok so theoretically you need to have an AIP (which you've can get in 5 mins) and the proof that you own a house that someone has said they mighty buy? Both of which could mean nothing the next day? Or 'equity' that someone could spend ... or owe to someone else. Meanwhile someone like me, whose situation is a bit more complex at first, is refused a viewing and jogs on to another agent, and is a solid purchaser, with nothing to sell. Doesn't sound like good business sense to me. Why not do due diligence at memorandum of sale when at least a solicitor is instructed. 

kinger101

Three words I never thought I'd see in the same sentence.

lookstraightahead

kinger101 said:

Three words I never thought I'd see in the same sentence.

😂😂 some are ok to be honest

[Deleted User]

No system is fool proof.  An AIP could turn in to a declined application, a SSTC viewer can lose their buyer the next day.    All anyone can do is their best to check people are reasonably able to proceed if they chose to.  

I still get enquiries from people saying their offer has been accepted and they want to arrange a mortgage but they only have 5% deposit, or have stuck an arbitrary 5x income to get their budget.  
Equally I spoke to someone the other day who completely miscalculated their equity and was miles away in terms of affordability for the one they had bought.  Its just trying to root out the delusional people mostly. 

I would say that asking for bank statements to show available funds is 1 end of the scale and not bothering to check if the viewers have 2 pennies to rub together is the other.   If i was selling my house I know I would prefer the agent to drift towards the first option rather than the second.  

Most agents in my area will ask if the viewers have an AIP, are SSTC (and ask a few questions), what level of deposit they have available.  Some ask for documents, some dont.  Thankfully I dont think any agent around here has so little respect for their clients that they dont bother asking any proof of ability to purchase in the middle of a pandemic. 

MaryNB

lookstraightahead said:

Mickey666 said:

lookstraightahead said:

Mickey666 said:

The_Man_In_The_Pub said:

The agent informed me that this is new company policy  

And I'd inform the agent that it is my policy not to reveal how much I have to spend thankyou very much (and if they still refuse, just pop a note through the vendors door).

Honestly. The estate agents must see some of you lot coming!

And I'd inform my agent that it's also MY policy as a seller not to allow non-proceedable persons to view my property.  There would enough details and photos in the EA brochure to satisfy the timewasters and a note through my door would be ignored if I was already signed up to an EA.   Anyone truly serious about buying would not be concerned about providing proof of funds and if they can;t be bothered to provide such info then I can't be bothered to let them wander around my home.

How do you provide proof of funds if you need them from the proceeds of your "sold" house before viewing? 

Your house equity forms part of your proof, obviously.  Most people need to sell their current house to buy a new one.

"Funds" doesn't necessarily mean cash in the bank account (though it did for the last house I sold!), you just have to be able to show that you can afford your proposed transaction and are not wasting everyone's time.  Could be cash in the bank, could be cash+mortgage only (FTB), could be cash+mortgage+equity, etc

Ok so theoretically you need to have an AIP (which you've can get in 5 mins) and the proof that you own a house that someone has said they mighty buy? Both of which could mean nothing the next day? Or 'equity' that someone could spend ... or owe to someone else. Meanwhile someone like me, whose situation is a bit more complex at first, is refused a viewing and jogs on to another agent, and is a solid purchaser, with nothing to sell. Doesn't sound like good business sense to me. Why not do due diligence at memorandum of sale when at least a solicitor is instructed. 

A vendor or EA can only assess risk on what information they have at the time. A person with an offer on their property and an AIP isn't no risk, just lower risk than somebody who has neither. Everything is a risk until exchange. If your funding is tied up with inheritance and probate that makes you a riskier buyer than someone with the funds to hand. Yes, later you proved a solid buyer but the vendor initially has to take a larger risk. Your inheritance might not come through as expected and then the sale falls through. There's a risk  that could have come through later than expected and so the vendor's onward purchase fall through because their seller loses patience finds another buyer. 

If I was your seller and you didn't have your funds available at the offer stage I wouldn't consider you proceedable. A lot of vendors (not all obviously) these days require buyers to be proceedable at the point of viewing or at least when offering, not after solicitors are instructed. I mean of course that means nothing to you because your vendor isn't as risk averse and you are now nearing exchange. When I offered there was a risk my mortgage would not go through (very straightforward application, but the vendor didn't know that) but the rest of the funds were in my bank account and I'm an FTB so no chain. No solicitors were instructed until I sent proof of my offer to the EA, at which point I became very low risk. In your case you were a risk in terms of both needing a mortgage and waiting for deposit funds to clear (but of course also not having a property to sell was in your favour). You vendor took the risk and it's about to pay off.

lookstraightahead

MaryNB said:

lookstraightahead said:

Mickey666 said:

lookstraightahead said:

Mickey666 said:

The_Man_In_The_Pub said:

The agent informed me that this is new company policy  

And I'd inform the agent that it is my policy not to reveal how much I have to spend thankyou very much (and if they still refuse, just pop a note through the vendors door).

Honestly. The estate agents must see some of you lot coming!

And I'd inform my agent that it's also MY policy as a seller not to allow non-proceedable persons to view my property.  There would enough details and photos in the EA brochure to satisfy the timewasters and a note through my door would be ignored if I was already signed up to an EA.   Anyone truly serious about buying would not be concerned about providing proof of funds and if they can;t be bothered to provide such info then I can't be bothered to let them wander around my home.

How do you provide proof of funds if you need them from the proceeds of your "sold" house before viewing? 

Your house equity forms part of your proof, obviously.  Most people need to sell their current house to buy a new one.

"Funds" doesn't necessarily mean cash in the bank account (though it did for the last house I sold!), you just have to be able to show that you can afford your proposed transaction and are not wasting everyone's time.  Could be cash in the bank, could be cash+mortgage only (FTB), could be cash+mortgage+equity, etc

Ok so theoretically you need to have an AIP (which you've can get in 5 mins) and the proof that you own a house that someone has said they mighty buy? Both of which could mean nothing the next day? Or 'equity' that someone could spend ... or owe to someone else. Meanwhile someone like me, whose situation is a bit more complex at first, is refused a viewing and jogs on to another agent, and is a solid purchaser, with nothing to sell. Doesn't sound like good business sense to me. Why not do due diligence at memorandum of sale when at least a solicitor is instructed. 

A vendor or EA can only assess risk on what information they have at the time. A person with an offer on their property and an AIP isn't no risk, just lower risk than somebody who has neither. Everything is a risk until exchange. If your funding is tied up with inheritance and probate that makes you a riskier buyer than someone with the funds to hand. Yes, later you proved a solid buyer but the vendor initially has to take a larger risk. Your inheritance might not come through as expected and then the sale falls through. There's a risk  that could have come through later than expected and so the vendor's onward purchase fall through because their seller loses patience finds another buyer. 

If I was your seller and you didn't have your funds available at the offer stage I wouldn't consider you proceedable. A lot of vendors (not all obviously) these days require buyers to be proceedable at the point of viewing or at least when offering, not after solicitors are instructed. I mean of course that means nothing to you because your vendor isn't as risk averse and you are now nearing exchange. When I offered there was a risk my mortgage would not go through (very straightforward application, but the vendor didn't know that) but the rest of the funds were in my bank account and I'm an FTB so no chain. No solicitors were instructed until I sent proof of my offer to the EA, at which point I became very low risk. In your case you were a risk in terms of both needing a mortgage and waiting for deposit funds to clear (but of course also not having a property to sell was in your favour). You vendor took the risk and it's about to pay off.

So I was worth the risk surely? But you wouldn't have let me view., based on your criteria. I'm not sure risk averse comes into play - surely it's more risky to have a set of limiting criteria? Its narrowing your potential for a sale. It might be reducing the amount of people who see you're property, from a health perspective (and if so maybe the vendor should wait) but what else does a vendor have to lose?

funds at offer stage yes of course, funds at time of viewing, no. Cast your net as far as you can initially, then filter out later. 

MaryNB

lookstraightahead said:

MaryNB said:

lookstraightahead said:

Mickey666 said:

lookstraightahead said:

Mickey666 said:

The_Man_In_The_Pub said:

The agent informed me that this is new company policy  

And I'd inform the agent that it is my policy not to reveal how much I have to spend thankyou very much (and if they still refuse, just pop a note through the vendors door).

Honestly. The estate agents must see some of you lot coming!

And I'd inform my agent that it's also MY policy as a seller not to allow non-proceedable persons to view my property.  There would enough details and photos in the EA brochure to satisfy the timewasters and a note through my door would be ignored if I was already signed up to an EA.   Anyone truly serious about buying would not be concerned about providing proof of funds and if they can;t be bothered to provide such info then I can't be bothered to let them wander around my home.

How do you provide proof of funds if you need them from the proceeds of your "sold" house before viewing? 

Your house equity forms part of your proof, obviously.  Most people need to sell their current house to buy a new one.

"Funds" doesn't necessarily mean cash in the bank account (though it did for the last house I sold!), you just have to be able to show that you can afford your proposed transaction and are not wasting everyone's time.  Could be cash in the bank, could be cash+mortgage only (FTB), could be cash+mortgage+equity, etc

Ok so theoretically you need to have an AIP (which you've can get in 5 mins) and the proof that you own a house that someone has said they mighty buy? Both of which could mean nothing the next day? Or 'equity' that someone could spend ... or owe to someone else. Meanwhile someone like me, whose situation is a bit more complex at first, is refused a viewing and jogs on to another agent, and is a solid purchaser, with nothing to sell. Doesn't sound like good business sense to me. Why not do due diligence at memorandum of sale when at least a solicitor is instructed. 

A vendor or EA can only assess risk on what information they have at the time. A person with an offer on their property and an AIP isn't no risk, just lower risk than somebody who has neither. Everything is a risk until exchange. If your funding is tied up with inheritance and probate that makes you a riskier buyer than someone with the funds to hand. Yes, later you proved a solid buyer but the vendor initially has to take a larger risk. Your inheritance might not come through as expected and then the sale falls through. There's a risk  that could have come through later than expected and so the vendor's onward purchase fall through because their seller loses patience finds another buyer. 

If I was your seller and you didn't have your funds available at the offer stage I wouldn't consider you proceedable. A lot of vendors (not all obviously) these days require buyers to be proceedable at the point of viewing or at least when offering, not after solicitors are instructed. I mean of course that means nothing to you because your vendor isn't as risk averse and you are now nearing exchange. When I offered there was a risk my mortgage would not go through (very straightforward application, but the vendor didn't know that) but the rest of the funds were in my bank account and I'm an FTB so no chain. No solicitors were instructed until I sent proof of my offer to the EA, at which point I became very low risk. In your case you were a risk in terms of both needing a mortgage and waiting for deposit funds to clear (but of course also not having a property to sell was in your favour). You vendor took the risk and it's about to pay off.

So I was worth the risk surely? But you wouldn't have let me view., based on your criteria. I'm not sure risk averse comes into play - surely it's more risky to have a set of limiting criteria? Its narrowing your potential for a sale. It might be reducing the amount of people who see you're property, from a health perspective, but what else does a vendor have to lose?

Yes, but you're looking at it retrospectively with the benefit of knowing at this late stage you are now low risk. And maybe in your area your vendor didn't have as many buyers interested or they needed a quick sale so risk averse means taking on whoever will offer. I live in an area where there is high demand so risk averse means being choosy about your buyer. With the pandemic making the banks tighten up lending, vendors trying to minimise viewings and the end of the stamp duty holiday approaching, vendors and EAs have been significantly favouring low risk buyers. Any EA I spoke to asked if I was proceedable. I would not have got a viewing if I said I was waiting for inheritance. Most properties goes SSTC in less than a month. My colleague is buying near me, it went to best and final offers and he lost out to another buyer who offered less that he did because he had a house to sell and the other buyer didn't.

Say I get two offers for my house. At the point of offering all I know is:
Buyer A = No chain, 60% LTV, proof of funds
Buyer B = Selling a house as part of an acrimonious divorce, 85% LTV, doesn't provide proof of funds.

I have to take what is essentially a bet on one, and the return on each is a £250k for my house. At the point of offering above is all I know. Nothing else. Who do I risk 3 months, £2k+ in fees and my onward purchase on (and in the current climate, stamp duty holiday on)? Obviously Buyer A is significantly preferable to so I proceed with Buyer A. You are saying further above that a seemingly low risk buyer could turn out to be high risk and the high risk buyer turns out to be low risk. Yes of course they can, but if we all knew what happened in the future there would be no such thing as risk! 

Maybe 2 months down the line Buyer A's solicitors says they've failed money laundering checks so they don't have an acceptable deposit. Maybe after getting their mortgage offer they take a car out on finance and in the days before exchange their lender credit checks them and pulls the offer. Buyer B finds a buyer for their own house in no time, ex partner is on board, and eventually provides proof of funds, all of it clears money laundering checks. But there is no way for me to know any of this at the point of offering because I am not psychic.