Gazundering -

ianmr65

Article in the Guardian today :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/apr/12/property.houseprices3

[Peter Bolton King, chief executive of the National Association of Estate Agents, says he has heard several reports from members that gazundering is making something of a comeback. The Council of Mortgage Lenders painted a similar picture this week.

"Buyers thinking they can drive down the price at the last minute are playing a very dangerous game," Bolton King warns. "Most sellers will take the view that they won't be bullied - for that is what it is - into lowering the price. By gazundering the buyer not only risks losing the costs they have incurred, but all those incurred up and down the chain."

He says serious price falls as seen in 1992 can make the honouring of deals difficult, but he says the current price falls are nowhere near those experienced then. "From where I'm sitting the market doesn't feel the same as it did in the early 90s. Gazundering has no place in home buying - particularly in a market falling just a few percentage points," he says.]

Really? a few percentage points......well thats ok then. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

So gazumping, actively encouraged by estate agents through the years, and alive and well till last summer was fine. (presumabaly as it earn't them more commision) But gazundering is described as evil!!


"The last two circles of Hell punish sins that involve conscious fraud or treachery. The circles can be reached only by descending a vast cliff:

The fraudulent—those guilty of deliberate, knowing evil—are located in a circle named Malebolge ("Evil Pockets"), divided into ten bolgie, or ditches of stone, with bridges spanning the ditches:

Bolgia 8: Fraudulent advisors are encased in individual flames.
Bolgia 9: A sword-wielding demon hacks at the sowers of discord.
Bolgia 10: Groups of various sorts of falsifiers and estate agents are afflicted with different types of diseases for eternity.

maninthestreet

The NAEA has a vested interest in discouraging gazundering.

BTman

I agree, if gazumping was fair game in a rising market, then gazundering should be fair game in a falling one.

Mr_Stew

Gazumping, gazundering... both are completely wrong.

Anyone who does either of these deserve to end up homeless.

sarkin

Capitalist society both gazumping and guzundering are fair. No prizes for second place

Thomas99

Mr_Stew wrote: »

Gazumping, gazundering... both are completely wrong.

Anyone who does either of these deserve to end up homeless.

Sounds like you've got more money than faculties.

Mr_Stew

Thomas99 wrote: »

Sounds like you've got more money than faculties.

No, I treat people how I expect to be treated in return.

Wait until you are in a chain just before exchange and see how you feel. It's fine if all people in the chain are happy to negotiate, but if one person says "no" then whole chain collapses and everybody loses out.

Generali

ianmr65 wrote: »

Bolton King [of the NAEA] warns. "Most sellers will take the view that they won't be bullied - for that is what it is - into lowering the price. By gazundering the buyer not only risks losing the costs they have incurred, but all those incurred up and down the chain."

This is untrue and Mr King should know its untrue. If you offer someone less money for their house prior to exchange of contracts, the only losses you make are those you have incurred yourself. If someone else has exchanged contracts prior to you then that's their lookout.

pickledtink

Exchange of contracts is the legal point of commitment to buy. Even in a rising market one should factor in an expected percentage lesser actual sale price.

Anything from buyers circumstances, discovered negatives by Solicitors ( that's why we pay them so much folks!) or Granny doesn't like the shelf where she'll park her teeth.
It's not a done deal until you exchange. An offer is the buyers opening figure much like the sellers asking price.
It's negotiable until contract. Nobody has to buy and nobody has to sell. Works both ways on the loss of Survey/Solicitor fees. This is a business transaction for often large sums on both sides and people should treat it accordingly.

As seen elsewhere on this forum: Unless you are willing to firmly refuse if someone offers you more don't whine when they offer you less. You do not have to accept after all.

It's called negotiation.

Gonzo

pickledtink wrote: »

Exchange of contracts is the legal point of commitment to buy. Even in a rising market one should factor in an expected percentage lesser actual sale price.

Anything from buyers circumstances, discovered negatives by Solicitors ( that's why we pay them so much folks!) or Granny doesn't like the shelf where she'll park her teeth.
It's not a done deal until you exchange. An offer is the buyers opening figure much like the sellers asking price.
It's negotiable until contract. Nobody has to buy and nobody has to sell. Works both ways on the loss of Survey/Solicitor fees. This is a business transaction for often large sums on both sides and people should treat it accordingly.

As seen elsewhere on this forum: Unless you are willing to firmly refuse if someone offers you more don't whine when they offer you less. You do not have to accept after all.

It's called negotiation.

That's probably all true.

However. Being a human being, when I've accepted an offer, I then cost my resultant offer on the house I want. I start looking at washing machines. I make plans based on the figures I have to hand. If it's a long drawn-out process over many months in a falling market then maybe, but I'm even uneasy about that.

We bought this house in a rising market (just as it was taking off) but for some reason, despite there being no chain, it took months. The seller was complaining and threatened to pull out (I believe I have the EA to thank for keeping it on track, but it certainly wasn't our fault!) and I think it was worth a couple of grand more by the time we moved in, but a sudden change in price would have broken our plans as we had no more money!

If the buyers or sellers in our current (short) chain change their prices then we'll be:
a - gutted
b - renting instead

We don't have the flexibility to change now we've agreed a price, and I bet we're not alone in that. Human nature is to buy as good as you can (hopefully comfortably) afford, not choose a markedly less suitable house in order to cover contingencies.

Free market economies - yay!

Human beings involved - boo!

Zammo

Gazundering is teh kewl.