I believe I have evidence of an estate agent creating fake bids

MickyMart

NameUnavailable said:

MickyMart said:

If they have committed fraud, made a paper record of it then shown it to the victim they deserve to go to jail for gross stupidity. 

Do you think a fraudster would be that stupid? Would they record the actual name of their partner in crime or do you think they might perhaps use some made up name instead? Hmmmmmm

No, no, yes. 

Salemicus

Jeepers_Creepers said:

AdrianC said:

Jeepers_Creepers said:

'In cahoots': In most contexts, it describes the conspiring activity of people up to no good.

Which, from the OP's perspective, the vendor paying the EA to sell the property appears to be.

I don't think that is what's being alleged, or suspected. 'Only' shill-bidding.

OP seems to think that the EA noticing how keen she was, and telling the vendor about it, is somehow underhand, so who knows.

jimbog

Salemicus said:

> If the EA was in cahoots with the vendor, would this be illegal?

Of course the EA and the vendor are "in cahoots." Whose agent do you think he is?

Reminds me of the quote by the famous Liverpool football manager Bill Shankly: If a player is not interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage, then he should be

kdotdotdotdot

Lonely_willow said:

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Hi Lonely-Willow.

I have to say I am surprised by the majority of comments on here. Only teachfast seems to feel that - if what you suspect is true - it is highly improper.

I also have to say, tho', that virtually every suspicion you listed in your first post barely warrants a second thought; please try and dismiss them. The one and only thing that does legitimately raise suspicion is IF the other bidder's name was the actual name of the property owner. Sadly, you have difficulty recalling if it was similar or the exact same, and that makes taking action very difficult.

If it were absolutely certain it was the same name, then I would personally pursue this. If I wasn't sure, I'd probably let it lie. It is very easy to see a name that makes a connection, perhaps because the other name was already in your head, and you wonder if it was the same - it just 'rings a bell'. A Sue or a Sarah or a Sadie jumps out as "I've seen that name before" just because you had a Sophie on your mind.

If the EA was in cahoots with the vendor, would this be illegal? I haven't a clue - but it certainly should be.

Don't know what to suggest, L-W; this has to be your call. You either - if you are 95% certain the names were the same, contact the EA ombudsman and ask their advice, or - if less than that - let it go.

Don't worry about the legal issue of having been shown the bidders' names - that's entirely on the EA's head; all you did was 'ask'.

Well the vendor was a landlord and the house I bought was rented out for many years with the estate agent. There is a good chance the vendor and agent had a working relationship 

100% they had a working relationship: all EAs work for the vendor and are paid by them.  It's the EA's job to get the highest price for a house: that is literally what they're employed to do.

I'm very sorry about the pain that you must be feeling at the moment.  None of the things you've written proves that you were cheated.  The only thing that sounds possibly suspicious is that you think that maybe the names of the vendor and the other person could maybe have been the same, but you're not sure.

You keep saying 'bidding', 'won' - was this at an auction?  If not, then you made offers and you bought your house.  

Jeepers_Creepers

Salem, jimbog, dotdot et al, if this situation is as L_W says - the EA allowed the vendor to effectively compete - as in repeatedly gazump - their buyer in order to raise the price, what are your thoughts?

jimbog

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Salem, jimbog, dotdot et al, if this situation is as L_W says - the EA allowed the vendor to effectively compete - as in repeatedly gazump - their buyer in order to raise the price, what are your thoughts?

If seems to me a question of semantics. If that is what happened then all it amounts to is the same as the EA  allowing the vendor to say 'no' to each of the 16 successive offers  that  the OP put forward. Is that not the vendor's prerogative? And the EA's responsibility to pass that information on? The OP increased their offer until both the vendor and OP are each satisfied and a deal is reached.

I think you misunderstand what gazumping is - not relevant to this situation. 

Jeepers_Creepers

I don't think I have misunderstood.

If the EA is knowingly - and it would be knowingly - adding false counter bids from the vendor, that would be gazumping (legal) but also counter to EA's regs. In fact, it would be criminal activity as I pointed out a few posts back.

SDLT_Geek

Gazumping is accepting a higher bid from another party after having started the conveyancing process with someone else.  So not the position here at all.

greatcrested

OP has not been online for 2 days. Surely this thread has run its course.... at least....

moneysavinghero

Jeepers_Creepers said:

I don't think I have misunderstood.

If the EA is knowingly - and it would be knowingly - adding false counter bids from the vendor, that would be gazumping (legal) but also counter to EA's regs. In fact, it would be criminal activity as I pointed out a few posts back.

Gazumping only happens after an offer has been accepted (and usually a while down the whole process). In the OP's situation no offers had been accepted (until the final one) so no gazumping has taken place.