Cash buyer beat me to it and I didn’t get any chance to do anything about it?

Salemicus

AdrianC said:

Salemicus said:

AdrianC said:

At least Brown's reputation has been saved from being one of the worst PMs of the modern era - he's already not even the worst PM of the 21st century.

I always think these comparisons are a bit silly. Suppose Brown had got a few more seats in 2010 and clung on for a year or two in ignominious fashion, and suppose May wins a couple fewer in 2017 and has to resign. Then he's seen as the worst and May is a footnote, but it's hard to credit him for doing worse in an election, and punish her for doing better.

They all faced particular times and circumstances, and can only be compared against them.

So PM reputations are only based on whether they won elections or not?

No, they're principally based on what they do in office, which is a combination of their abilities and the circumstances in which they find themselves. But if you lose an election, you're out of office, and Prime Ministers are generally judged on the results, without much allowance for the circumstances. So if you win an election which puts you in difficult circumstances, you'll probably hurt your reputation, which isn't really fair.

But then, neither is life.

SpiderLegs

MaryNB said:

Mickey666 said:

MaryNB said:

I don't think anybody would argue that the rate at which house prices increase is crazy but there is a difference between reducing the rate of increase (which will only really come with a better supply and/or tougher access to credit) and a total collapse. A total collapse with have a significant impact on any current homeowners if they end up in massive negative equity, not just property investors and EAs.

I find it hard to imagine a mechanism for the 'total collapse' of house prices.   How would it work in practice?  Who would voluntarily sell their house for less than they paid for it?  Wouldn't they simply stay where they are?  Sure, some people are forced to move due to various circumstances, but anyone not forced to move is sort of immune to house prices collapsing if they simply choose not to sell.

As long as they continue to pay their mortgage they continue to have a home and 'negative equity' becomes just a theoretical thing of no consequence.  After all, what's the alternative?  Sell up and rent?  When rent is likely to cost more than the mortgage payments?  It would make no sense. 

What makes sense it to simply stay put, which reduces supply, which puts pressure on demand, which drives the price back up again.  It's a sort of homeostatic mechanism that regulates the market - it's not a conscious thing, it just arises from the normal, sensible decisions that millions of home owners will make.

What happened a lot in Ireland was people in their mid-20s buying 1 or 2 bed starter homes in the boom (being told rent is chucking money down the drain etc) then in their 30s had 2 to 3 kids but couldn't sell because of negative equity. Loads of people lost their jobs or took big pay cuts, couldn't afford their mortgage repayments but couldn't sell it off. It made it difficult to move away to look for work -we had a significant amount of emigration due to unemployment. The inability to sell for some people lasted years beyond the crash. It took my cousin and his wife nearly 8 years to get out of negative equity. When the bought you could get a 100% mortgage (if I recall correctly even 105%) and in some areas in Ireland houses have not returned to 2007 price levels.

Yes this is exactly the point the average HPCer fails to understand.

the people who get hurt most by a recession are the lower paid and the people who get hurt most by a house price crash are the high LTV.

i.e the people who have stuff already are generally OK.

Anyone who thinks that a sharp 20% reduction in house prices is going to make the world a better place is in fantasy land. There won’t be any houses for them to buy, they may well have lost their job and all their mates who had bought are now stuck with negative equity and no social mobility.

Tokmon

billy2shots said:

verb

gerund or present participle: gazumping

1. 1.

   INFORMAL•BRITISH

   make a higher offer for a house than (someone whose offer has already been accepted by the seller) and thus succeed in acquiring the property

I stand by what I wrote. It is not technically gazumping until the the person has successfully completed on the property.


I forgot how fun MSE can be with members highlighting typos thanks for reminding me @AdrianC

You may stand by what you said but your completely wrong and you have posted a definition of gazumping that shows your wrong...


When someone has "completed" on the property that means contracts have been exchanged, money has been paid and they have moved into the house. So that means you think that once that happens someone else can offer more and the seller can accept it and kick them out of their new house 

Gazumping is exactly what it says in your definition and can happen after an offer has been accepted but it cannot happen after contracts are exchanged otherwise the seller will be in breach of contract and can be taken to court for compensation and certainly can't happen after completion because the seller no longer owns the house to sell it to someone else.

billy2shots

Tokmon said:

billy2shots said:

verb

gerund or present participle: gazumping

1. 1.

   INFORMAL•BRITISH

   make a higher offer for a house than (someone whose offer has already been accepted by the seller) and thus succeed in acquiring the property

I stand by what I wrote. It is not technically gazumping until the the person has successfully completed on the property.


I forgot how fun MSE can be with members highlighting typos thanks for reminding me @AdrianC

You may stand by what you said but your completely wrong and you have posted a definition of gazumping that shows your wrong...


When someone has "completed" on the property that means contracts have been exchanged, money has been paid and they have moved into the house. So that means you think that once that happens someone else can offer more and the seller can accept it and kick them out of their new house 

Gazumping is exactly what it says in your definition and can happen after an offer has been accepted but it cannot happen after contracts are exchanged otherwise the seller will be in breach of contract and can be taken to court for compensation and certainly can't happen after completion because the seller no longer owns the house to sell it to someone else.

What on earth are you talking about???


You have the definition right in front you, you even quoted it. Why are you being ridiculous in making up things  and suggesing I think gazumping can take place after contracts. You're just making things up now.

I'm sorry you don't understand the concept  but it is very clear. The sale must go through for gazumping to have occurred. 



Gazumping is often used incorrectly. Someone might say they have been gazumped when a new offer comes in and the vendor accepts having previously accepted their offer. The actual definition is they haven't  been gazumped until that sale completes. 

I do understand it's confusing as most people jump the gun and the word is commonly used too early but I don't make the rules, the definition is the definition.

Let's try this.

Homeless

People use this term too early. 'I am being evicted soon, I am homeless'

No, when that actually happens you will be homeless'. You could substitute homeless for jobless if you want or any similar example. You can't be something LESS until it actually happens.

Now gazumped.

A new offer has come in and the vendor decides to ditch you. When that process is FINISHED then you have been gazumped. 

Now you could argue that the definition needs to be changed. I don't have an issue with that but until it is then it is what it says on the tin.


If you would prefer the Cambridge dictionary version

gazump

verb [ T often passive ]

 UK informal

UK 

 /ɡəˈzʌmp/ US 

 /ɡəˈzʌmp/

 

to refuse to sell a house that you own to someone you have agreed to sell it to, and to sell it instead to someone who offers to pay more for it:




The key is 'sell it instead' the same as the previous dictionary definition 'thus succeed in acquiring the property'. If that new sale falls through then the previous bidder technically was never gazumped.

The key wording is 'sell it' I can only presume you thought gazumping was 'agree to sell it'.




I don't make the rules....

Tokmon

billy2shots said:

Tokmon said:

billy2shots said:

verb

gerund or present participle: gazumping

1. 1.

   INFORMAL•BRITISH

   make a higher offer for a house than (someone whose offer has already been accepted by the seller) and thus succeed in acquiring the property

I stand by what I wrote. It is not technically gazumping until the the person has successfully completed on the property.


I forgot how fun MSE can be with members highlighting typos thanks for reminding me @AdrianC

You may stand by what you said but your completely wrong and you have posted a definition of gazumping that shows your wrong...


When someone has "completed" on the property that means contracts have been exchanged, money has been paid and they have moved into the house. So that means you think that once that happens someone else can offer more and the seller can accept it and kick them out of their new house 

Gazumping is exactly what it says in your definition and can happen after an offer has been accepted but it cannot happen after contracts are exchanged otherwise the seller will be in breach of contract and can be taken to court for compensation and certainly can't happen after completion because the seller no longer owns the house to sell it to someone else.

What on earth are you talking about???


You have the definition right in front you, you even quoted it. Why are you being ridiculous in making up things  and suggesing I think gazumping can take place after contracts. You're just making things up now.

I'm sorry you don't understand the concept and are trying to be Captain Pedantic but it is very clear. The sale most go through. 



Gazumping is often used incorrectly. Someone might say they have been gazumped when a new offer comes in and the vendor accepts having previously accepted their offer. The actual definition is they haven't  been gazumped until that sale completes. 

I do understand it's confusing as most people jump the gun and the word is commonly used too early but I don't make the rules, the definition is the definition.

Let's try this.

Homeless

People use this term too early. 'I am being evicted soon, I am homeless'

No, when that actually happens you will be homeless'. You could substitute homeless for jobless if you want or any similar example. You can't be something LESS until it actually happens.

Now gazumped.

A new offer has come in and the vendor decides to ditch you. When that process is FINISHED then you have been gazumped. 

Now you could argue that the definition needs to be changed. I don't have an issue with that but until it is then it is what it says on the tin.


If you would prefer the Cambridge dictionary version

gazump

verb [ T often passive ]

 UK informal

UK 

 /ɡəˈzʌmp/ US 

 /ɡəˈzʌmp/

 

to refuse to sell a house that you own to someone you have agreed to sell it to, and to sell it instead to someone who offers to pay more for it:




The key is 'sell it instead' the same as the previous dictionary definition 'thus succeed in acquiring the property'. If that new sale falls through then the previous bidder technically was never gazumped.

The key wording is 'sell it' I can only presume you thought gazumping was 'agree to sell it'.




I don't make the rules....

Ah now i understand what your saying, the way you worded it and reading that post on it's own i thought you had meant that gazumping was something that happened after completion and not that it was something that can only be realised after completion in hindsight. 

David2710

Lover_of_Lycra said:

David2710 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

David2710 said:

Deleted_User said:

jordan3939 said:

How is this fair??? 

Because it's the seller's property. Therefore they choose who to sell to.

I beg to differ. The practice of Gazumping is not only unethical, it's corrupt and immoral. In Scotland for instance once a seller has accepted an offer, whether in writing or verbally, the seller cannot accept an offer from someone else unless the first negotiations fall through. Just like the private rented sector this gray area needs legal reform to make the practice illegal. This nonsense about "my property my choice" is for the birds. Greedy, unprincipled so and so's. 

That's not entirely correct.  A vendor in Scotland can accept another offer even if the originally accepted offer has not fallen through or been withdrawn.  The vendor's solicitor would no longer be able to continue acting for the vendor though as the rules of the Law Society of Scotland would prevent them from doing so meaning the vendor would need to find a new solicitor.  In practice though I have never seen or heard of this done with any of my property purchases in Scotland or those of friends and family.

Overall though I agree that it is much more civilised process in Scotland.  As a renter you might prefer the Private Rental Tenancies in Scotland over the Assured Shorthold Tenancies in England.

I agree but who wants to live in Scotland under the SNP and the appalling Nicola Sturgeon? No thanks. Not even if you paid me. 

Me for one. 

That would be the SNP that introduced the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016.

There are many SNP policies I like including the said act but it's all undone by Sturgeon's ridiculous position of wanting independence only to hand over the new powers back to Brussels. It's utter madness and it isn't independence.  

David2710

MobileSaver said:

David2710 said:

I have spoken often about how unfair and discriminatory the private rented sector is, it's basically free market capitalism gone mad.

I assume you mean unfair to the landlords? I agree it is mad that tenants can stop paying rent but landlords are having to wait up to a year or even longer before they can evict the free-loading lowlife.

David2710 said:

it never passes into law because the Tories always vote the motion down. I'm just saying with a different government the balance of power can be swung in favour of the tenant

Labour were in power for over a decade pre-2010, can you remind me what rent caps they introduced during that period?

David2710 said:

with a different government  ... That's why I say "my house my choice" is not always the case in other parts of the world ... I say that's a good thing

In other parts of the world... posting online that you favour a different government will see you thrown in jail or worse, is that a good thing too?

David2710 said:

One day the housing market will collapse as it did in the early 90's and I predict street parties across the land not seen since VE day.

In the early 90s hundreds of thousands of people had their homes repossessed and were thrown out on the street. Are these street parties for cash-rich people to celebrate cheap properties coming on to the market or are they for the homeless who no longer have a home they can party in?

" I agree it is mad that tenants can stop paying rent but landlords are having to wait up to a year or even longer before they can evict the free-loading lowlife".

That's not very nice is it? Calling people lowlifes because of Covid. Before Covid it was quite possible to evict a tenant within 8 weeks using a Section 8 or 21 eviction notice. Don't blame the tenants blame parliament who voted for these emergency measures. 

AdrianC

Tokmon said:
Ah now i understand what your saying, the way you worded it and reading that post on it's own i thought you had meant that gazumping was something that happened after completion and not that it was something that can only be realised after completion in hindsight. 

There are, of course, three main milestones in any property sale...

1. Acceptance of offer.
2. Exchange of contracts.
3. Completion of contracts.

Gazumping can ONLY happen between 1 and 2.

And that's exactly when we were talking about here...

David2710

MaryNB said:

David2710 said:

Mickey666 said:

jordan3939 said:

Yesterday I put in an offer on a flat and the estate agent informed me someone had gone higher than the asking price. I said was it 5k more? If so I will match and she said it was. I then got a call later saying the seller had accepted his offer as he was a cash buyer. How is this fair??? I was going to offer more if they came back to me but I didn’t get a chance to. Any tips for battling against cash buyers for next time? Thank you.

Why does it have to be fair?  Life isn't isn't fair, so why expect the house-buying process to be fair?  Just be glad that you're even in the position to be able to afford a house - billions of people on the planet don't have that luxury.  Is that 'fair'?

I agree life is cruel but it doesn't have to be unfair. I have spoken often about how unfair and discriminatory the private rented sector is, it's basically free market capitalism gone mad. Reforming the Housing act has been debated ad nauseum in Parliament in regards to capping rents, compulsory purchase orders, long term tenancy's etc., as they do in other parts of Europe, but sadly it never passes into law because the Tories always vote the motion down. I'm just saying with a different government the balance of power can be swung in favour of the tenant and not the money grasping landlord and agent.

In other country's gazumping is strictly forbidden and in parts of the mid-east the punishment is much more severe, so in the end it's all about political choices. That's why I say "my house my choice" is not always the case in other parts of the world. The Housing act and specifically the private rented sector needs root and branch reform and if that means rogue and or amateur landlords leaving the playing field then I say that's a good thing. Maybe then and only then will this government act to build genuinely affordable social housing to rent. One day the housing market will collapse as it did in the early 90's and I predict street parties across the land not seen since VE day. Life's cruel but can be fairer.   

I don't remember the street parties in 2008....

I don't think anybody would argue that the rate at which house prices increase is crazy but there is a difference between reducing the rate of increase (which will only really come with a better supply and/or tougher access to credit) and a total collapse. A total collapse with have a significant impact on any current homeowners if they end up in massive negative equity, not just property investors and EAs.

The problem has been massively exacerbated by Help to Buy and Right to Buy. Help to buy because the cap was set at £400K helping the rich get on the property ladder and Right to Buy because genuinely affordable housing stock wasn't replenished as promised by George Osborne. This not only stoked an already overheated/overpriced housing market it forced the low paid into renting in the private rented sector.

A private sector that doesn't consider tenants on low pay or claiming benefits, and with little or no social housing available and net migration at 250,000 a year, many British people are forced onto the streets and especially single homeless people.

I remember back in the 60's when a married couple could buy a decent house with a garden, buy a car and have two Butlins holidays a year and all on a Milkman's salary. I am predicting a huge correction in house prices when furlough ends but I won't be dancing in the fountains in Trafalgar square I'll just celebrate with a Cuban cigar and a bottle of Blue Nun.        

billy2shots

AdrianC said:

Tokmon said:
Ah now i understand what your saying, the way you worded it and reading that post on it's own i thought you had meant that gazumping was something that happened after completion and not that it was something that can only be realised after completion in hindsight. 

There are, of course, three main milestones in any property sale...

1. Acceptance of offer.
2. Exchange of contracts.
3. Completion of contracts.

Gazumping can ONLY happen between 1 and 2.

And that's exactly when we were talking about here...

Sigh,

That would be classed as an attempt to gazump. 

It wouldn't be gazumping until that new offer was accepted, contracts exchanged and contracts completed.

Look at it another way, your offer was previously accepted. Before you exchange the vendor accepts an increased offer from me. That process starts and then you think to hell with this and come back before I have exchanged ( very unlikely but hear me out) and the vendor now goes with you again.

Now with your understanding of the word we have both gazumped each other. That can't be possible which is why the word gazump can only be used after the sale completes hence the definition.

Another way of looking at it.

You have an agreement in place but before you exchange the vendor accepts a higher bid. Later the higher bidder pulls out meaning no sale occurs. In that scenario nobody has been gazumped as no sale occurred. Again your misunderstanding of the word means you have  been gazumped which is not and can not be the case hence the definition.


I completely understand your confusion as 99.9% believe the same as you. It's up to all of us to be prepared to learn, correct our misbelief and then help educate rather than continue to unintentionally mislead/misinform.