What is the current practice for bidders to show that they can afford to buy?

[ClubMan]

In that case the agent seeking proof of funds would eliminate that issue?

 

[Brendan Burgess]

I agree fully.

In a seller's market, buyers should market themselves as the most likely to complete the sale. Show that you can comfortably afford it.

And from the estate agent's point of view, he should refuse bids from people who are quoting GDPR and showing redacted AIPs.

However, the estate agent may be complicit in allowing the person to bid up the price.

 

[mugsymugsy]

The extra amount the estate agent by bidding up the price per sale is miniscule but the impact / reputation the seller will pass onto others indicating that the estate agent gets a good price.

 

[Leo]

I really do not understand why this is a never ending problem. Surely the agent should take people at face value unless given a reason not to do so.

The problem is that neither potential buyers nor vendors can be taken at face value.

In that case the agent seeking proof of funds would eliminate that issue?

Reduce perhaps, but not eliminate. My anecdote of the Sherry Fitz agent in South Dublin who had multiple sales fall through at the last minute despite having solicitors letters confirming funds were in place suggests it's not fool-proof. It's also easy to fake financial documents and the agents have no means of verifying them.

In reality though, I suspect some element of those pulling out of sales at the last minute is down to a change of mind due to cold feet, finding somewhere better, or realising they got caught up in a bidding war and offered more than they should. With most purchasers' solicitors insisting on the 'subject to finance' clause, it's the logical card to pull if you want to exit for any reason. It's highly unlikely that a vendor would seek to prove you actually had the funds and so should not be able to rely on that clause.

Perhaps a non-refundable deposit on going sale-agreed would focus people's minds.