Can estate agents use "ghost bidders" to drive up price of house?

[Lobby]

Unfortnately self regulation without the necessary backup leglislation is rather impotent, consider it similar to a golf club and their own internal rules.

The IAVI does have procedures and does follow them, a number of EAs have had their membership revoked in recent years for various infringements, but this is about the extent that the IAVI can goto, unless it can be shown that the EA acted illegally and is brought through the courts then they are fairly toothless.

In relation to other posts above, there can be other factors in a bid being accepted/rejected, we recently got a very good bid (probably above the market value of the property) however the vendor was not able to sell as the bid was still less than the outstanding mortgage and the bank refused to consent to the deal. They may yet regret that!!!!

 

[Lobby]

In Scotland there is a time limit on the bidding. Seller sets a deadline for the submission of written legally binding bids - often submitted in sealed envelopes. All bids opened at the same time after the deadline. Highest bid is legally required to complete. Eliminates ghost bidding because a ghost cannot submit a legally binding bid.

I don't believe that this is strictly correct, from my understanding of it the highest bid only become binding when "accepted in writing by the vendor or their solicitor". See [broken link removed]
a brief guide to property purchase in Scotland by the Scottish Executive.



Otherwise the vendor is at the mercy of the bidders and has little or no control of who purchases their property.

 

[Robin Banks]

Mr.Man, whilst I don't like arguing with you about this, but they have done absolutely nothing to change the Public perception of Estate Agents and the Public perception of same.

I'm sure all the honest people in the EA profession and the IAVI have been crying out for increased regulation and big sanctions for dishonesty.

Oh wait..

 

[mercman]

Apart from Mr.Man, who and where is the other person ??

 

[MrMan]

I agree. Its one thing saying you want regulation its another thing actually doing it.

Isn't the point here that regulation should be independent? The IAVI do self regulate, but as has been pointed out that only goes so far. There isn't a great appetite for change at the moment because so many are on their knees or are looking at new areas of employment right now, but i personally think now is a great time to start making changes.

 

[Robin Banks]

Isn't the point here that regulation should be independent?

Ideally yes, but expecting a profession to regulate itself requires honesty and integrity, so self regulation by EAs has been a miserable failure.

The IAVI do self regulate, but as has been pointed out that only goes so far.

If tolerating and therefore tacitly encouraging dishonesty and shysterism amounts to self regulation then the IAVI has done a wonderful job. EA comes in marginally above mugger in the trustworthy stakes.

There isn't a great appetite for change at the moment because so many are on their knees or are looking at new areas of employment right now,

Yes I think its a fantastic opportunity for all those who were involved in the Irish Property Bubble to deploy their talents elsewhere. There must be plenty of other industries crying out for greedy, smug, dishonest, lazy halfwits.

but i personally think now is a great time to start making changes.

10 years ago was the time - but better late than never I suppose.

 

[mf1]

Apart from Mr.Man, who and where is the other person ??

Apart from the fact that I'm not sure what that post of mercmans means.........


Quote from Mr. Man

"It is amazing how the mindset changes when ones goes from purchaser to vendor. A house that needs work suddenly has character etc. An EA has a job to do, that generally doesn't include giving purchasers the inside track on how to get the property for as little as possible, the sooner peopple realise this the better."

I'm completely with Mr. Man on this one.

mf

 

[Lobby]

Ideally yes, but expecting a profession to regulate itself requires honesty and integrity, so self regulation by EAs has been a miserable failure.


If tolerating and therefore tacitly encouraging dishonesty and shysterism amounts to self regulation then the IAVI has done a wonderful job. EA comes in marginally above mugger in the trustworthy stakes.

By definition the very people who need the regulation (the crooked EAs) are already dishonest, so expecting them to voluntarily accept a punishment for any transgressions is just naive. All the IAVI can do is revoke someones membership - they can't stop them being an EA.

The legislation to address this has been sitting around for years, if you're looking for someone to blame then it's the politicians for not enacting the legislation.

 

[Robin Banks]

By definition the very people who need the regulation (the crooked EAs) are already dishonest, so expecting them to voluntarily accept a punishment for any transgressions is just naive.

Sorry I thought the point of regulatory bodies was to investigate and impose penalties on dishonest members, not on the crooks to have some sort of sudden attack of self principles.

All the IAVI can do is revoke someones membership - they can't stop them being an EA.

That would be a start. All the honest EAs could then say that such and such had their membership revoked by the IAVI dont you know. I wouldnt want to deal with them - cluck, cluck. Ireland is a very small country at the best of times.

The legislation to address this has been sitting around for years, if you're looking for someone to blame then it's the politicians for not enacting the legislation.

Well its always someone elses fault I suppose. God forbid a group of supposedly "professional" adults might start exercising some accountability for their own members actions.

EA's have the reputation they brought upon themselves.

 

[MrMan]

Ideally yes, but expecting a profession to regulate itself requires honesty and integrity, so self regulation by EAs has been a miserable failure.
Where has self regulation been a resounding success? Point us to the model that shows an industry that does not look after its own needs in this country.


If tolerating and therefore tacitly encouraging dishonesty and shysterism amounts to self regulation then the IAVI has done a wonderful job. EA comes in marginally above mugger in the trustworthy stakes.
I guess this statement goes down in the personal opinion column rather than fact.


Yes I think its a fantastic opportunity for all those who were involved in the Irish Property Bubble to deploy their talents elsewhere. There must be plenty of other industries crying out for greedy, smug, dishonest, lazy halfwits.
The 'opportunity' is genereally due to being out of work, your lack of understanding of how EA's operate and get paid doesn't bode well for any future comments you may post on the topic. For instance graduates outside of Dublin would have generally started on c.€25,000pa, and they slowly worked their way up. So there was little to be smug about let alone be considered greedy.


10 years ago was the time - but better late than never I suppose.
no time like the present

 

[Lobby]

Sorry I thought the point of regulatory bodies was to investigate and impose penalties on dishonest members, not on the crooks to have some sort of sudden attack of self principles.

Precisely, but there's isn't a regulatory body for EAs yet. Under the current system, sadly, there is a requriement for crooked EAs to "have a sudden attack of principles". And as an aside, even a proper regulator doesn't guarantee the system works - just look at the splendid work the FInancial Regulator has done in keeping the banks etc. in check.....

That would be a start. All the honest EAs could then say that such and such had their membership revoked by the IAVI dont you know. I wouldnt want to deal with them - cluck, cluck. Ireland is a very small country at the best of times.

The IAVI revoked 40 memberships in 2008. Not sure if there's a list but shouldnt be too hard to determine who they were.

Well its always someone elses fault I suppose. God forbid a group of supposedly "professional" adults might start exercising some accountability for their own members actions.

EA's have the reputation they brought upon themselves.

The point is that the IAVI cannot do much unless the EA in question broke the law, and even then its up to the courts. It's not a matter of whether or not they want to.

 

[canicemcavoy]

I guess this statement goes down in the personal opinion column rather than fact.

Actually, it's not:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-405210/Politicians-trusted-estate-agents.html

The results of a national survey by the Commission on Standards in Public Life two years ago showed that less than a quarter of people generally trusted Government ministers to tell the truth.
They were 15th in the pecking order of professions, just above estate agents.

Sorry, but that is the public perception of your profession (I can't imagine it's much different in Ireland). You may argue you're not that bad, and you're probably right, but that is how you are perceived and why you need to take action.

 

[MrMan]

Actually, it's not:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-405210/Politicians-trusted-estate-agents.html



Sorry, but that is the public perception of your profession (I can't imagine it's much different in Ireland). You may argue you're not that bad, and you're probably right, but that is how you are perceived and why you need to take action.

I'm not under any illusions about public perception, did the mail have muggers before or after EA's?

 

[Lobby]

I'd be interested in peoples opinions on how EAs perception could be improved. I don't think it's an easy job, e.g. after all EAs are dealing with probably the largest financial transaction most people ever make and trying to convince them they need to spend more to get the house.

How can (as this post started out as) ghost bids be eliminated?

Showing people the "bids book" won't work as the EA can easily stick in some false bids (a few pre-pay mobile numbers could give an air of authenticity)

 

[mercman]

I'd be interested in peoples opinions on how EAs perception could be improved.

How about a small bit of honesty to start with. IMO it is impossible to trust somebody that is selling something they do not even own themselves.

We're down to the difference between a Liar and a Thief. A thief will tell you if they stole something. A liar will tell you lies and more lies, so you never know where you stand

 

[Lobby]

How about a small bit of honesty to start with. IMO it is impossible to trust somebody that is selling something they do not even own themselves.

So if it's impossible, then how does an honest EA distuinguish himself from a dishonest one?

Would someone selling a house choose the "honest" or "dishonest" EA?

 

[canicemcavoy]

I'm not under any illusions about public perception, did the mail have muggers before or after EA's?

I would "trust" a mugger before an EA. After all, if someone says "Hi, I'm a mugger", I know exactly where I stand. If they say "Hi, I'm an estate agent", I have no idea whether they'll rip me off or not.

(Yes, I know, a rather Jesuital way of looking at it.)

 

[Bronte]

This is way over the top on estate agents. I think people who bought property at overinflated prices are trying to blame someone. The easiest target is an estate agent. They should look to themselves. People have to take responsibility for any purchase they made. At the end of the day you don't have to deal with an estate agent. Estate agents work for the vendor simple as that. I am at a loss to understand how estate agents forced people to buy property? There are going to be bad apples in any profession.

In relation to self regulation, well it works for no profession, just think doctors and lawyers and they can do a lot more damage than an estate agent.

Bankers were regulated by the government and look where that got them, multimillionaires.

 

[MrMan]

How about a small bit of honesty to start with. IMO it is impossible to trust somebody that is selling something they do not even own themselves.

We're down to the difference between a Liar and a Thief. A thief will tell you if they stole something. A liar will tell you lies and more lies, so you never know where you stand

Why automatically assume dishonesty?
How far do you take ownership? In almost every purchase of every good that you will buy in your lifetime, it will be from someone who does not own the item they are selling, so how is it an issue?
If you ask me a question regarding the property and area I will answer truthfully, if the owner is dealing with you directly would you automatically assume that every detail they put forward to be the truth?

 

[MrMan]

I would "trust" a mugger before an EA. After all, if someone says "Hi, I'm a mugger", I know exactly where I stand. If they say "Hi, I'm an estate agent", I have no idea whether they'll rip me off or not.

(Yes, I know, a rather Jesuital way of looking at it.)

If I say 'Hi I'm an estate agent' it means I sell property to those that wish to and have the means to purchase it. If you decide not to, you don't. If a mugging is preferable to trying to make an adult decision then thats your own choice. You don't get ripped off if you pay a price that you agree to and don't forget, you still have plenty of time to pull out in the following weeks.