buyer paying sellers costs?

ironted

Hope you may be able to impart some wisdom to me.

DH & I are looking at buying a house that didn't sell at auction. It didn't meet the reserve price of £89,750.

The auctioneer said that the sellers cost were £2,995 and that we were being asked to pay them. The agent (a different person) said that we weren't expected to pay them.

We put a cheeky verbal offer of £83,000 in which was rejected. The agent said that the seller was looking for £92,000 despite the reserve price being £89,750.

We're first time buyers and are unsure what is considered normal in regards to costs.

What would you recommend our next offer should be?

Thanks in advance.

Doozergirl

It often happens with auction properties that the buyer pays costs.


Stick low and fight. It sounds like the £92,000 is either a way of getting you to the reserve price, or they genuinely don't know you know.

ironted

Thanks for your reply.

Do you mean that they don't know that we know the reserve price?

Doozergirl

ironted wrote: »

Thanks for your reply.

Do you mean that they don't know that we know the reserve price?

That's what I meant, yes.

ironted

:rotfl:

Thanks

RHemmings

I don't see the problem here. Offer them what you want to pay for the property, and tell them that this offer is inclusive of all costs. How they divide up the money is up to them and you have no interest in that. Either they will accept your offer, or not. If not, then you can decide whether to increase the offer. But this "seller's costs" thing is just an irrelevance as far as I can see.