Estate Agent or Do viewings yourself?

meanmachine_2

river_kwai wrote:

Is that how much you are paying the EA, more than £10k!!!

He's got a posh gaff in West London.

John_M_Business

river_kwai wrote:

Is that how much you are paying the EA, more than £10k!!!

Yes. But then the sale price is rather high. I had a cheap 2-bed in West London. Converted it to a four-bed maisonette (basement conversion and kitchen / dining extension) with all top-of-the-range F&F... now it's very desirable.

But then so's the countryside, which is why I'm moving out (with family).

nelly_2

i just simply could not give an ea ten grand

John_M_Business

nelly wrote:

i just simply could not give an ea ten grand

The thing is, sometimes we can get so focused on the money, that we forget it is not about what you pay (as a vendor) but what you get for your place MINUS what you pay. What you get NET.

Given that EAs, in this area at least, are charging at least 1.5%, then if you're selling for, say, £500k, you ARE going to pay AT LEAST £7.5k.

And, given the property I was selling, I needed an EA who would be able to present this to the right clientele in the right way. If my flat was a 'Xerox' flat (i.e. the same as another 30-40 on the same street) then I would probably have tried to sell it myself, but it isn't - it's very different to anything else around (my street is the only street in the area with ground floor garden flats (not basement), my flat is the only flat in the street with a basement conversion (all the others are houses) and the only flat with an extension to the rear). Therefore it needed to be marketed in the right way.

So, given that I was going to use an EA, Marsh & Parsons were a very good bet, because most of their other offices are more central, meaning that you get the drift from Notting Hill, Kensington and Chelsea - the right market, people willing to pay a premium. They also present premium properties in the right way. Sure, they were asking for 0.5% more commission... but then most of the ones offering a 'better' deal valued our property at £75k less than Marsh and Parsons.

I believed Marsh and Parsons could get the sort of offer I wanted, and am glad to say that they did. They have 'cost' me about £3k more than the competition, but have got an offer on the table of about £50k more than the competition.

meanmachine_2

Looking at their wesbite, they certainly do seem geared to the smart set.

I don't think I could afford a sneeze in a hankerchief, given their prices.

And I'm clearly not their market, either, being FTBer scum.

Notting Hill...I remember when that used to be an area people would happily move away from.

nelly_2

meanmachine wrote:

Looking at their wesbite, they certainly do seem geared to the smart set.

I don't think I could afford a sneeze in a hankerchief, given their prices.

And I'm clearly not their market, either, being FTBer scum.

Notting Hill...I remember when that used to be an area people would happily move away from.

It went ok after Julia Roberts and Hugh Grant moved in

lush_walrus

Hepatacyte wrote:

Something I have often wondered about estate agents is why do they charge a % of the purchase price as a fee? If I sell my house, worth about 500K, do they work harder for me than for someone whose house is only worth 250K. I would certainly hope so, given that I will be paying twice the amount as the other person. Somehow I do not think that they do though. In the last 13 years I have sold/bought 10 houses. The only agent who I considered any good was the one who turned up in his Porsche 911, sold my house within 1 week and then called me to tell me he had the ideal house for me just come on his books that morning. I made an offer on it that afternoon. From the rest I got the usual litany of excuses, broken promises, half-truths, bogus other parties and mis-information. Sad really.

Throughout this thread i have to admit that I agree more with mean machine than the practising agents. As a professional myself (chartered status of a royal society and 3 degrees) I do find it funny that estate agents like to equate themselves with doctors, lawyers and engineers (and scientists like me of course). Don't think so guys.

Yes agents do work harder according to price, think about it, the majority of the population can afford something at the lower end of the market, where as the higher the price the less people can afford it, so ultimately it tends to stick on the market for longer, therefore incurr higher costs and more risk of doing lots of work and no fee.

Not all chains end at the very top ie the most expensive house in Britain, many stop at bunglows due to death, so the top of a chain will not always be £500,000. But most chains start at the bottom ie a flat of some discription.

Thats why % charge, nothing untoward.

lush_walrus

nelly wrote:

I wish all I had to do was walk round a house and " chase up chains on the phone" for 2 grand!

Anything is possible, and your options are always open to changing jobs, if you want to work as an EA, then do it!

lush_walrus

meanmachine wrote:

John, I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but if, for some mad reason, I wanted to be an estate agent, then all I'd have to do is acquire a shop front, a cheap suit and away we go.

If I wish to start operating on people, the minimum training required is around 5 years. The same with lawyers.

I also think that these old school professions attract a very different type of person. I've met very few doctors who are flash Harry, look at my wad types. In fact, I have mates who are doctors, but have no EA friends. Funny that.

Anyway, keep us updated on the sale of your gaff.

Yes and the same is true of architects (I presume you classify architects as professionals? (as with the others the exact amount of time is actually 7yrs as we all have to study 3 yr degree, 1 yr working in practice, 2 yr diploma, then Part 3 exams which take a year min).

As I previously stated I am by profession an architect, HOWEVER, I also own EA's, which over time I have spent periods working in.

So one area of my life is 'old school profession', and the other is a lets say job again for the sake of arguement is EA, so am I two different people or am I the same one in two different jobs

Generalisations are always dangerous, as are definitions of words such as profession. This definition is forever changing with new 'jobs' being considered as professions all of the time as society changes and new 'jobs' appear, computing staff are a perfect example.

I am no more ashamed of being an EA than I am for being an Architect, which is why I am perplexed about the way you view things.

nelly_2

lush_walrus wrote:

Anything is possible, and your options are always open to changing jobs, if you want to work as an EA, then do it!

I would but im inherently a nice person so that counts me out.