Is anything really for sale? (old thread)

gmisk

Supercell wrote: »

Fast forward on to 2013 and my brother is trying to buy a house in around the same price range the OP is talking about , but in D8 and every time he sees a house he is getting told there are bids on it already above the asking. Now D8 is not D4 or Dalkey so we suspect there is some shenanigans going on there too. I really wonder if the market is totally utterly rigged right now and its the rare lucky ones that are finding a genuine seller.

I would say its genuine to be honest, I know that 11 people were bidding on a house in inchicore that I had a quick look at about 6 months ago, it was on at 160 and went for 185.
There is a huge lack of supply in a lot of areas, so people seem to be getting into bidding wars for anything anyway decent.

molloyda

molloyda wrote: »

Since this thread has had a new lease of life - I'll give an update.

Throughout the course of buying we expressed interest in maybe 15 properties in the north Dublin county (350-450k region) area. About 5 of these appeared to be actually for sale. The others manifested themselves as "dodgy" by any of the following:
- Estate agents being elusive about arranging viewings
- People putting houses for sale and going "on holidays" immediately during what is normally the "momentum phase" (top of Daft/myHome etc./Recently Added etc.)
- Estate Agents/Sellers not responding to bids and requiring constant hounding
- Houses being taken off the market at advanced stages for 'work', 'rennovations' etc.
- Sellers looking for crazy money and moving upwards on what they want as bids came in.

However, we found a property but not in our original area of choice. We ended up finding a property in the outskirts of Meath. This one was a repossessed buy-to-let property in need of a little work. In Meath there seemed to be a much higher incidence of "real property" for sale. However, I do know a few people who were looking into sites and there's all sorts of family land messing around going on there.

Not at contracts phase yet, but deposit is down so hoping all goes well. There is some guilt associated with buying a repossessed house, but when it's not a primary residence it seems reasonable enough.

Wish I'd read this thread before wasting weeks chasing an agent about a house that is patently not for sale. Your first three points in particular - being elusive about viewings, going on holiday right after posting the ad on MyHome, having to hound the agent - are all too familiar.

And having experienced this first-hand and moaned about it to friends/family, it turns out to be pretty common. My sister went to bid on a house only for the agent to say they weren't taking offers - 'just need to be seen to have it on the market'. And a friend went sale agreed only for the process to drag on and on until they got fed up.

gaius c

Say thank you for the link. ;-)

It's a thread that got overlooked and the bulls tend to ignore the massive amount of supply-side restriction that is going on but it's there and it cannot continue indefinitely.

gaius c

gaius c wrote: »

Say thank you for the link. ;-)

It's a thread that got overlooked and the bulls tend to ignore the massive amount of supply-side restriction that is going on but it's there and it cannot continue indefinitely.

Humble thanks gaius for kindly directing me here from thepropertypin

One thing that I don't get is why estate agents knowingly facilitate people who want to list their houses for sale but do not want to sell.

If agents work on a commission basis, it's just pure hassle to have to field calls from people who want to view a house that you're not really expecting to sell. Or even to repeatedly show a property that you know the owner is reluctant to part with.

Anyone any ideas on this?

gaius c

Deleted User wrote: »

One thing that I don't get is why estate agents knowingly facilitate people who want to list their houses for sale but do not want to sell.

If agents work on a commission basis, it's just pure hassle to have to field calls from people who want to view a house that you're not really expecting to sell. Or even to repeatedly show a property that you know the owner is reluctant to part with.

Anyone any ideas on this?

It's better to have it on their books than a rival agent's.

gaius c

gaius c wrote: »

It's better to have it on their books than a rival agent's.

Just in terms of attracting other houses that really are for sale? I suppose but it must be a pain for them. Maybe I'm just thinking of how stressful I'd find it to be giving half a dozen people the runaround - it's probably something you get used to if that's your job.

riclad

Maybe it looks good to have lots of houses for sale,on the website
even if some are NOT really for sale.

gaius c

Deleted User wrote: »

Just in terms of attracting other houses that really are for sale? I suppose but it must be a pain for them. Maybe I'm just thinking of how stressful I'd find it to be giving half a dozen people the runaround - it's probably something you get used to if that's your job.

Because on the off chance that it does actually sell, it's your sale and not your competitors.

I was complaining here last year about a house that had come on and off the market only for the agent to eventually concede that it was never truly for sale. Taking her at her word, I think she believed it would be sold ('the bank is making him sell') but clearly the owner had no intention of doing anything more than getting the bank off his case for a few months.

Totally separately, but 1/4 mile down the road, another house that was on the market in 2013 at an unrealistic price reappeared last summer at an even higher price (+35k). I tried to arrange a viewing and it was exactly like the other house - and like the experience of others on this thread: delays, holidays, weird excuses about not having a spare key for the agent...

Followed up with the agent a few times. Eventually he told me in exasperation that he was pulling his hair out as the owner had just informed him that he decided to 'sell it to the HSE' for 15k above the asking.

The agent bluntly said this just didn't add up. He wasn't aware that that HSE was in the market and paying over the odds directly to the seller i.e. not engaging with the agent who had no bids because they had been unable to show it. Apologies to the HSE for dragging their name into this - all evidence suggests this was a total fabrication by the seller.

It's about nine months on now and the house never appeared in the property register. I passed it the other day and the same van that was there last year is still in the driveway. House did not sell; was never for sale.

I wasn't in love with this house or anything but it's very frustrating to be messed around like this. Even makes me feel sorry for estate agents!

When I see Daft alerts arrive in my inbox and I recognise the house from a previous ad, I am now immediately suspicious. In some cases they are houses where a would-be buyer couldn't come up with the cash but in others they are owners with money/bank troubles who have no intention of selling.

riclad

i know someone who could not afford to puy the mortgage,
put house up for sale ,
recieved offer of 90k.
bank said that offer is not enough would not let sale go thru.
house was investment property.
no one living there .
House was empty for 2 years .
after 2 years house was sold for 90k.
You could simply bid on houses ,that have no mortgage,
ie the seller owns the house ,100 per cent.
ASK the agent is there a mortgage on the house,
if seller lived there for 20 plus years the house is likely to be mortgage free.

gaius c

riclad wrote: »

i know someone who could not afford to puy the mortgage,
put house up for sale ,
recieved offer of 90k.
bank said that offer is not enough would not let sale go thru.
house was investment property.
no one living there .
House was empty for 2 years .
after 2 years house was sold for 90k.
You could simply bid on houses ,that have no mortgage,
ie the seller owns the house ,100 per cent.
ASK the agent is there a mortgage on the house,
if seller lived there for 20 plus years the house is likely to be mortgage free.

Unfortunately not. They could have re-mortgaged to fill their boots with Bulgarian apartments!

daUbiq

Couldn't we contact the main mortgage providers to tell them a particular house is not actually up for sale when we come across one of these scam sellers.. They are committing fraud, aren't they, if they tell the bank they are selling the house?

audi12

Skerries wrote: »

so you actively want people thrown out of their homes through no fault of their own?

if you cant pay for a house you should not be in end of some many bloddy socalists in this country if they ran the banks no one would pay anything back

MarkAnthony

Deleted User wrote: »

Even makes me feel sorry for estate agents!

Steady on there!

MarkAnthony

audi12 wrote: »

if you cant pay for a house you should not be in end of some many bloddy socalists in this country if they ran the banks no one would pay anything back

Thanks for requoting that, it's not that it was sufficiently dealt with almost a year ago when it was posted.

audi12

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Thanks for requoting that, it's not that it was sufficiently dealt with almost a year ago when it was posted.

Needs to be said again as them socialist left wing hippies are still out in force

daUbiq

audi12 wrote: »

Needs to be said again as them socialist left wing hippies are still out in force

The people advocating not paying are not socialists, they are simply idiots, many of them are actually of a right wing leaning.

audi12

daUbiq wrote: »

The people advocating not paying are not socialists, they are simply idiots, many of them are actually of a right wing leaning.

Idiots is not a strong enough word for them

daUbiq

audi12 wrote: »

Idiots is not a strong enough word for them

Indeed, I'm trying to keep my posts reasonable! :P

audi12

daUbiq wrote: »

Indeed, I'm trying to keep my posts reasonable! :P

Suffered enough bans mayself

daUbiq

daUbiq wrote: »

The people advocating not paying are not socialists, they are simply idiots, many of them are actually of a right wing leaning.

The Land League, for example, seem to be disgruntled developers, builders, taxi drivers and the ghosts of Mick Davitt and 'Constance Markyavich'. Great diversity to be fair...

audi12

Deleted User wrote: »

The Land League, for example, seem to be disgruntled developers, builders, taxi drivers and the ghosts of Mick Davitt and 'Constance Markyavich'. Great diversity to be fair...

Scumbags that land league sticking up for multi millonaires who wont pay

But they've been very useful in turning public opinion in favour of repossessions

audi12

Deleted User wrote: »

But they've been very useful in turning public opinion in favour of repossessions

Have they not sure about that

johnp001

audi12 wrote: »

Have they not sure about that

I would say they definitely have with the O'Donnell farce.
As if the blatant stupidity and incongruity of their position before wasn't bad enough...

Maybe a bit of wishful thinking on my part.

But by their hilariously bad judgement in backing up the likes of the Killiney Two they have at least highlighted the injustice of keeping something you haven't paid for.

Somehow the Joe Duffy Morality Compass can't quite map that logic onto a landlord who has two investment properties in default and is probably still a long way off calling for the eviction of the family who decided they deserved a 5-bed detached house in Dublin when all they could really afford was a 3-bed semi in Meath.

Personally I say the landlord should lose unpaid property. No quibble.
For families, I could live with them losing the ownership of the property but being allow to rent until the children are adults.

What I can't stand is the idea that the gredier you were when buying a house, the richer your kids will be. And their kids, and their kids...

audi12

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe a bit of wishful thinking on my part.

But by their hilariously bad judgement in backing up the likes of the Killiney Two they have at least highlighted the injustice of keeping something you haven't paid for.

Somehow the Joe Duffy Morality Compass can't quite map that logic onto a landlord who has two investment properties in default and is probably still a long way off calling for the eviction of the family who decided they deserved a 5-bed detached house in Dublin when all they could really afford was a 3-bed semi in Meath.

Personally I say the landlord should lose unpaid property. No quibble.
For families, I could live with them losing the ownership of the property but being allow to rent until the children are adults.

What I can't stand is the idea that the gredier you were when buying a house, the richer your kids will be. And their kids, and their kids...

They are a total and utter discrace fighting the banks on technical issues you borrowed fortunes you cant pay it back and now you wont even give up property which will pay a fraction of the debt back makes me sick

I'm just glad they are so inept. The bandwagon they are on at the moment must be one of the least sympathetic cases out there.

Did they also get involved with this Killiney landlord who had 18 properties and was trying to stave off eviction? If it wasn't them it was another incarnation of the debt forgiveness brigade.

If they'd any savvy they'd pick a few hard luck cases of people with normal jobs, small kids, big mortgage, high creche fees who bought a standard house but ran into trouble due to pay cuts or lay-offs. I can't stand David Hall but his spin strategy is 1800% smarter than the Land League.

The_Morrigan

audi12 don't post in this thread again.