EA

GalwayBmw

I bade on a 2 bed apartments in October 2014 the bid was rejected by the vendor as per EA. Just saw the apt in the property register sold for 30K less than I offered. I am aware of cash vs. mortgage trade off isn't just about the money but...

Feel not good about it, presume nothing can be done at this stage. Wonder is there a regulatory body for EAs and can they be of help concerning my case?

Also what can be done about EAs getting in cahoots with a smart buyer and 'rejecting' all higher bids so the buyer will get it in the end?

The_Morrigan

Some anomalies on the PPR are in relation to VAT. So I wouldn't go off making insinuations about the behaviour of an EA, if in fact it is you that has the wrong end of the stick.

seamus

There's a regulator: http://www.psr.ie/website/npsra/npsraweb.nsf/page/index-en

Registering with the PSRA is voluntary at present, but if someone has registered, then they are obliged to follow the regulations it lays down. There is a complaints procedure if you believe that your EA has been in breach of the code.

The EA cannot reject any bids that are higher than the current bid. Effectively all bids must be put to the vendor - though the vendor can tell the EA to reject every offer under a certain amount.

If you believe that there's a conflict of interest on the EA's part (i.e. they're collaborating with a buyer to fool the vendor), then you can make a complaint to the PSRA. That's assuming the EA is registered.

There are a lot of weird "tricks" going around at the moment. In the example you give, what may have happened is that the property sold for more than you offered, to a cash buyer. But it's shown as €30k less because that €30k went straight into the vendor's pocket and the bank were told it sold for the lower amount.
This is becoming increasingly common where banks are forcing investment properties to be sold but failed investors feel hard done by and don't want to walk away empty-handed, even though they're already winning by having their debt cleared.

Edit: The VAT point above is a good one. Where the property is a new build, the value on the register is VAT exclusive.

If you suspect anything odd going on, you have nothing to lose by making a complaint.

On the other hand, I've heard of plenty of cases where a sale falls through and the EA just relists it without bothering to contact everyone who was interested before. The sale goes through for a lower amount then to someone who wasn't originally interested. EAs are a strange mix of lazy, arrogant and incompetent.

MarkAnthony

GalwayBmw wrote: »

I bade on a 2 bed apartments in October 2014 the bid was rejected by the vendor as per EA. Just saw the apt in the property register sold for 30K less than I offered. I am aware of cash vs. mortgage trade off isn't just about the money but...

Feel not good about it, presume nothing can be done at this stage. Wonder is there a regulatory body for EAs and can they be of help concerning my case?

Also what can be done about EAs getting in cahoots with a smart buyer and 'rejecting' all higher bids so the buyer will get it in the end?

Generally this isn't the conspiracy many, naturally, think it is. There can be all sorts of reasons why a vendor may go with a lower bid.

- Sold to family
- Under the table deal done in relation to side payments
- Higher/Similar offer to your accepted and survey revealed significant issues
- Gazundering
- Vendor unrealistic when rejecting your bid and eventually realising they're not getting what they expected.

Sucks, but there you go.

You can report them to the PSRA what will/can be done though, I simply don't know.

GalwayBmw

You reckon the discrepancy in the figures is the only reason? What if not, or should I automatically assume that??

BeatNikDub

Could the end amount also represent deducted outstanding management fees owed in addition to VAT?

But if you do feel the EA was untoward then as the others said contact the PSRA - EA's have to record every single bid by law so it would be easy to investigate.

davo10

The first point to consider, then accept is that the vendor is under no obligation to accept the highest bid. Cash buyers can get properties at a price lower than financed buyers, partly because it is a quicker process with less risk of the deal falling through, partly because there may literally be a cash element to the transaction.

When accusing someone else of wrong doing you should of course have some reason or evidence for doing so. Just because a bid is not accepted, even if it is higher than the registered sale price is not justification alone for an accusation of misconduct. If it was, every underbidder would be accusing EAs of wrong doing.

What would be the basis of your complaint? Have you any proof at all that the EA did something untoward?

GalwayBmw

I'm not accusing anyone, right. It just sounded strange to me that after making 4 or 5 bids the EA didn't bother coming back to me with an update... Such and such despite of you being the highest bidder the vendor decided etc.... That would do me just fine. Possibly the main reason of the annoyance for me besides loosing the bidding war is too high expectations re the EA service (I know they're on the market not for me).

I'm not flogging a dead horse, but just... as a person interested in buying I'm trying to get as better understanding of the rules and practices (legal or actual) as possible. There's a number of 'things' which I was unaware of, which do have a huge impact on the bidding outcome, including sweeteners for investors, gaz(under/ump)ings, offsetting prices with some unpaid charges/fees etc etc.

You can either live in a dream of deal with the reality.