Irish Property Market chat II - *read mod note post #1 before posting*

snow_bunny

Cyrus wrote: »

This is another misnomer if you think about the incentives for an estate agent to make up bids they aren't there, they make there money from a sale an extra 10 or 20k is a few hundred quid in commission.

I don't agree. It's about more than estate agent commission, in fact that has little to do with it really. One of the main agency players here gain their business by exaggerating possible sale prices to the vendor. Their strategy seems to be price it sky high, add 10% and then even if it achives 10% under asking, the buyer will think they've got a bargain and the vendor will still have achieved a crazy price for the property. It's not a good look for them if this isn't kept consistent, it's more about reputation and economies of scale than it is about commission. An extra €200 is nothing but an extra ten clients is huge.

Then there's the separate issue of the vendors. Say I have approval in principle. If my friends are selling their place and they need to push the bidding up another ten grand I can register, view and bid with no intention of buying. I can simply change my mind in the event of becoming the highest bidder and the under bidder will think they've "won the bidding". If it doesn't work, it cost nothing and can go back bidding at lower price. If it does work, nobody will ever know. There's nothing even illegal about that.

That's not even getting into how easy it would be to commit fraud and fake the whole thing down to the AIP letters.

It comes up as an issue for buyers constantly, there's no trust there. It could be fixed so easily by having to pay a non refundable bidding deposit. It's not fixed because the current format has zero accountability and works very well in the agency's favour.

Cyrus

snow_bunny wrote: »

I don't agree. It's about more than estate agent commission, in fact that has little to do with it really. One of the main agency players here gain their business by exaggerating possible sale prices to the vendor. Their strategy seems to be price it sky high, add 10% and then even if it achives 10% under asking, the buyer will think they've got a bargain and the vendor will still have achieved a crazy price for the property. It's not a good look for them if this isn't kept consistent, it's more about reputation and economies of scale than it is about commission. An extra €200 is nothing but an extra ten clients is huge.

Then there's the separate issue of the vendors. Say I have approval in principle. If my friends are selling their place and they need to push the bidding up another ten grand I can register, view and bid with no intention of buying. I can simply change my mind in the event of becoming the highest bidder and the under bidder will think they've "won the bidding". If it doesn't work, it cost nothing and can go back bidding at lower price. If it does work, nobody will ever know. There's nothing even illegal about that.

That's not even getting into how easy it would be to commit fraud and fake the whole thing down to the AIP letters.

It comes up as an issue for buyers constantly, there's no trust there. It could be fixed so easily by having to pay a non refundable bidding deposit. It's not fixed because the current format has zero accountability and works very well in the agency's favour.

You are inventing a conspiracy that doesn't exist. As for an ea setting prices someone has to buy it at that price if they don't it won't sell, they don't sell they make no money.

It's an enemy that isn't really there.

snow_bunny

Cyrus wrote: »

You are inventing a conspiracy that doesn't exist. As for an ea setting prices someone has to buy it at that price if they don't it won't sell, they don't sell they make no money.

It's an enemy that isn't really there.

In your opinion you mean. Unfortunately, that doesn't make it any less likely. I wasn't the first and I won't be the last to point out the huge potential for abuse that the current system allows. There's nothing conspiratorial about it.

It reminds me of the conversation about Tidy Towns on Newstalk the other day. There was a Councillor on talking about how the entries would be sent in by photographs this year. Pat Kenny asked "what if they photoshop them?" and the Councillor replied "oh gosh no, shur nobody would do that".

I'm not as inclined as some to give estate agents and vendors the benefit of the doubt when we're talking about tens of thousands of euro and my potential home.

cubatahavana

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Yep, i hear ya. We're in a similar boat. Personally, I'd have been delighted to exit planet Dublin but it's not an option.

For those of us with parents in Dublin, options are limited. It feels as if i've been sold a pup. Study work hard, study, more hoops and then you might finally afford a house worse than your parents but consider yourself lucky that your life savings went into that house because....

If I'd any sense I'd have gone into construction instead of university and just bought a few houses in the nineties and rented them out. We then could have bought a house anywhere when needed. The taxes I've paid/ sacrifices made and for what? So that a developer reaps all the rewards? So that the public sector can do SFA?

Anyway, grumpy old man territory now but yeah. For many with family in scd especially, options are limited.

Good luck!

I don’t want to be rude, but that’s your option. Millions of people emigrate and live in different countries than their parents. It can be done no problem. Your options are limited just by your wish to live near them

snow_bunny

snow_bunny wrote: »

In your opinion you mean. Unfortunately, that doesn't make it any less likely. I wasn't the first and I won't be the last to point out the huge potential for abuse that the current system allows. There's nothing conspiratorial about it.

It reminds me of the conversation about Tidy Towns on Newstalk the other day. There was a Councillor on talking about how the entries would be sent in by photographs this year. Pat Kenny asked "what if they photoshop them?" and the Councillor replied "oh gosh no, shur nobody would do that".

I'm not as inclined as some to give estate agents and vendors the benefit of the doubt when we're talking about tens of thousands of euro and my potential home.

If you have evidence of wrong doing, make a complaint to the relevant authority.

It never ceases to amaze me how hung up people get about advertised guide prices. EAs don’t get to set the selling price, the seller and buyer do. The accuracy of the guide price only becomes apparent after the market has set the actual selling price, sometimes it’s above, sometimes below, but the price depends on what the highest bidder is willing to pay for it, not what the EA advises it is worth.

Yes the process is open to abuse, by both sides. It is any less abuse by a buyer who bids beyond what they can afford, bids on multiple properties, changes their mind after price has been driven up?

Just remember, vendors want to sell for as much as possible, and the EA works for the vendor. Some day you might be on the selling end of the process, your concerns will be a little less important to you at that time.

Cyrus

snow_bunny wrote: »

In your opinion you mean.

No.

super_furry

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Interesting, I guess I'm disappointed that the predicted executor sales are not happening.

Was looking at this

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/26-quinns-road-shankill-dublin-18/4503082

Equivalent house sold for €200k less in 2017

10/07/2017 €447,500.00 79 QUINN'S ROAD, SHANKILL, DUBLIN 18, Dublin 18

We seem to be in real nose bleed territory now.

Funnily enough I bid on 79 back then and it really isn't an equivalent. If I remember rightly the asking price was €425k and the house needed a huge amount of work as well as being 50% smaller than the one currently for sale - so much so that the couple that bought it back in 2017 still haven't moved into it yet - they're still midway through a rebuild. Covid and the rest obviously hadn't helped but 79 was a 50s house that was barely touched since then. Minimum needed back in 2017 would have been a total rewiring and heating system - there was a back boiler that ran off that gas heater in the kitchen in the photos.

You can still see the original photos here - https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/79-quinns-road-shankill-dublin-18/3851810

Things were getting up there even back then though and that was the house that convinced myself and the wife that we'd need to go back to the bank and look for a bigger mortgage.

Obviously things have heated up since then but those houses really aren't like for like and even back in 2017, number 26 would have good for at least 125k more. Still think they might be pushing their luck asking for 645k especially when it needs updating but who knows, they'll probably get it.

Graham

Mod Note

Thread split, Why Does It Cost More to Build a House in Dublin than Other Counties

snow_bunny

Yes the process is open to abuse, by both sides. It is any less abuse by a buyer who bids beyond what they can afford, bids on multiple properties, changes their mind after price has been driven up?

Thanks.That's literally my whole point. We need a deposit system whereby you'll lose a few grand if you pull out as the top bidder.

Ace2007

snow_bunny wrote: »

Thanks.That's literally my whole point. We need a deposit system whereby you'll lose a few grand if you pull out as the top bidder.

Agreed, there has to be some sort of financial loss for bidding and pulling out - say 5% the value of the house - that would soon get rid of all the weeds and then you would see who is a real time buyer.

I've mixed feelings on the need proof of finances/AIP to view houses - I can understand the reasons behind it, i'm just not sure if it's the right way to go about it. A lot of people view houses that they would love to buy one day, or if they get money from somewhere - it's their goal to own house in x location.

I can't realistically afford to buy a Lamborghini does this mean i shouldn't be allow to view it and/or take it for a test drive.

selassie

Eamon Ryan on Newstalk this morning talking about putting power back in the hands of local county councils because they know what's needed locally.

The same local county councils who are opposing every large scale development in their areas and revising down the number of houses they need.

Blowfish

Ace2007 wrote: »

Agreed, there has to be some sort of financial loss for bidding and pulling out - say 5% the value of the house - that would soon get rid of all the weeds and then you would see who is a real time buyer.

The problem is, some banks require you to be sale agreed and booking deposit put down before they'll even let you apply for a LTI exception. This ends up with people who reckon they have a good chance of an exception bidding beyond what they have AIP for and then rolling the dice that the banks will grant the exception.

Bass Reeves

In the last boom Auctioneers who knew your finance details ( what size mortgage you got approval for and what size deposit you had ) used this information to drive you to that payment point

Bass Reeves

Bass Reeves wrote: »

In the last boom Auctioneers who knew your finance details ( what size mortgage you got approval for and what size deposit you had ) used this information to drive you to that payment point

Why would a buyer inform a an EA about what amount they had mortgage approval for and how much they had for deposit?

Ace2007

Blowfish wrote: »

The problem is, some banks require you to be sale agreed and booking deposit put down before they'll even let you apply for a LTI exception. This ends up with people who reckon they have a good chance of an exception bidding beyond what they have AIP for and then rolling the dice that the banks will grant the exception.

Two ways of tackling that - get the banks to change their policies. Or have the 5% penalty that is waived if the the bidder shows a rejection letter from the bank (that also states that the bidder has an AIP). This gets rid of those who have no attention to buy at all and bidding for friends.

You could even go a step further and say there is a 1% penalty regardless. It would take the heat out of the bidding wars, as only those with the approval, with the money, or those that are certain that they will get the exception will be bidding. This would in turn could put pressure on banks to change their policies.

The policy shouldn't be bid on a house and then come looking for more money if needed.

cnocbui

Dav010 wrote: »

Why would a seller inform a an EA about what amount they had mortgage approval for and how much they had for deposit?

I presume you mean buyer? If you read the currently buying/selling thread, you will see that some EAs are demanding to see the offer letter from a bank, not accepting a solicitors assurance that funds are available. Some buyers quite rightly don't want to show their hand.

L1011

Dav010 wrote: »

Why would a seller inform a an EA about what amount they had mortgage approval for and how much they had for deposit?

Some EAs would demand such info before accepting a bid. Even had that as late as 2011 from an EA that has since ceased to exist.

cnocbui

cnocbui wrote: »

I presume you mean buyer? If you read the currently buying/selling thread, you will see that some EAs are demanding to see the offer letter from a bank, not accepting a solicitors assurance that funds are available. Some buyers quite rightly don't want to show their hand.

L1011 wrote: »

Some EAs would demand such info before accepting a bid. Even had that as late as 2011 from an EA that has since ceased to exist.

Apologies, yes buyer. The EAs are demanding proof of funds to support the bid, not the maximum you can bid. This is progressive and hopefully cuts out some of the time wasters.

cnocbui

selassie wrote: »

Eamon Ryan on Newstalk this morning talking about putting power back in the hands of local county councils because they know what's needed locally.

The same local county councils who are opposing every large scale development in their areas and revising down the number of houses they need.

IMO they need to completely overhaul the planning laws and system and take power away from councils, not give them more.

cnocbui

Dav010 wrote: »

Apologies, yes buyer. The EAs are demanding proof of funds to support the bid, not the maximum you can bid. This is progressive and hopefully cuts out some of the time wasters.

No, they are asking to see the bank letter and the amount that has been made available. One person on that thread, If I am recalling correctly, gave the EA a copy of the letter with the amount redacted and the EA refused it and wanted to see how much money was on the table.

cnocbui

cnocbui wrote: »

No, they are asking to see the bank letter and the amount that has been made available. One person on that thread, If I am recalling correctly, gave the EA a copy of the letter with the amount redacted and the EA refused it and wanted to see how much money was on the table.

I suppose that is their prerogative, but I see no reason why an EA could want more than proof to support a bid, and why a buyer would give anything more than that. I have read posts where bids were made with a supporting letter from the bank confirming funds for that amount.

I understand why a redacted figure would not suffice as this does not show proof of funds to match the bid on the table.

snow_bunny

Cyrus wrote: »

No.

Hmm, quality contribution.

So, I can't prove something and that makes me a conspiracy theorist, in your opinion. You can't disprove something, but we should take your opinion as fact. Right.

You've missed the point anyway. It's neither here nor there whether this is happening or not, or can be proved or not. The only FACT here is that it is indeed possible and that there exist several loopholes that can be exploited by both Estate Agents and vendors if they so pleased.

L1011

Dav010 wrote: »

Apologies, yes buyer. The EAs are demanding proof of funds to support the bid, not the maximum you can bid. This is progressive and hopefully cuts out some of the time wasters.

This EA wanted original documents showing max AIP, not a proof of funds letter and was very, very insistent on it to the point that I walked away.

randomname2005

Ace2007 wrote: »

Two ways of tackling that - get the banks to change their policies. Or have the 5% penalty that is waived if the the bidder shows a rejection letter from the bank (that also states that the bidder has an AIP). This gets rid of those who have no attention to buy at all and bidding for friends.

You could even go a step further and say there is a 1% penalty regardless. It would take the heat out of the bidding wars, as only those with the approval, with the money, or those that are certain that they will get the exception will be bidding. This would in turn could put pressure on banks to change their policies.

The policy shouldn't be bid on a house and then come looking for more money if needed.

I can understand where you are coming from but I don't see it as realistic. There are too many unknowns that mean you might want to be bidding on two or more properties. (In our case we only bid on one at a time as we felt guilty about boosting bids on houses but regret that).

What happens if there is an issue that arises with the survey, or legal issues over title or planning, or being involved in a chain and something happens with the buyer of your current property, or the property the owners you are buying from want to buy.

Something needs to be done but I don't see how this approach would work

cnocbui

Dav010 wrote: »

I suppose that is their prerogative, but I see no reason why an EA could want more than proof to support a bid, and why a buyer would give anything more than that. I have read posts where bids were made with a supporting letter from the bank confirming funds for that amount.

I understand why a redacted figure would not suffice as this does not show proof of funds to match the bid on the table.

An EA rejecting a solicitor's assurance of funds and demanding to see the buyers hand is not on. It's the tail trying to wag the dog. Any solicitor encountering this nonsense should approach their professional body to take it up with the IPAV as an official complaint. It's not hard - don't have the funds, you don't get your deposit back. In other countries, that's what deposits are for and how they actually work.

snow_bunny

randomname2005 wrote: »

I can understand where you are coming from but I don't see it as realistic. There are too many unknowns that mean you might want to be bidding on two or more properties. (In our case we only bid on one at a time as we felt guilty about boosting bids on houses but regret that).

What happens if there is an issue that arises with the survey, or legal issues over title or planning, or being involved in a chain and something happens with the buyer of your current property, or the property the owners you are buying from want to buy.

Something needs to be done but I don't see how this approach would work

Something like this:

1. If you want to bid on a house, you must register with your ID (which is hidden from all but the estate agent and an independent body who are free to inspect the logs during audit).

2.You must add your solicitor verified AIP offer to your registered profile. This may be redacted.

3. You must pay a 5k deposit which is non refundable if you pull out of the bidding, even if you're an under bidder.

4. Once sale agreed, your deposit can be kept as a holding deposit and later refunded when signing contracts.

5. If the engineers report returns serious issues, you can chose to renegotiate the price or walk away and have your deposit refunded. Same goes for legal issues outside of the buyers control.

6. Upon going sale agreed, all other bidders have their deposit returned.

This system would really cut out time wasters and fraud. You'd have to be serious to even bid on a house and it would be great for the vendors and agents too because they'd know they had strong buyers.

Cyrus

snow_bunny wrote: »

Something like this:

1. If you want to bid on a house, you must register with your ID (which is hidden from all but the estate agent and an independent body who are free to inspect the logs during audit).

2.You must add your solicitor verified AIP offer to your registered profile. This may be redacted.

3. You must pay a 5k deposit which is non refundable if you pull out of the bidding, even if you're an under bidder.

4. Once sale agreed, your deposit can be kept as a holding deposit and later refunded when signing contracts.

5. If the engineers report returns serious issues, you can chose to renegotiate the price or walk away and have your deposit refunded. Same goes for legal issues outside of the buyers control.

6. Upon going sale agreed, all other bidders have their deposit returned.

This system would really cut out time wasters and fraud. You'd have to be serious to even bid on a house and it would be great for the vendors and agents too because they'd know they had strong buyers.

You are providing a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist at least on any sort of scale.

As a seller you can insist on conditions to the EA on the type of buyer you want and you can sell to whoever you want so next time you are selling a property feel free to put those conditions in place and see how it goes.

Some sellers want the maximum price regardless others want a cash buyer and a quick close.

cnocbui

cnocbui wrote: »

An EA rejecting a solicitor's assurance of funds and demanding to see the buyers hand is not on. It's the tail trying to wag the dog. Any solicitor encountering this nonsense should approach their professional body to take it up with the IPAV as an official complaint. It's not hard - don't have the funds, you don't get your deposit back. In other countries, that's what deposits are for and how they actually work.

I don't see what standing a solicitor has during the bidding stage, why would refusal to acknowledge their assurance be grounds for a professional complaint? Are solicitors empowered by lending institutions to give assurances on their behalf?

Bass Reeves

Dav010 wrote: »

Why would a buyer inform a an EA about what amount they had mortgage approval for and how much they had for deposit?

Towards the end of the last boom the first Mortgage brokers started to appear. Most were tied/part of the Auctioneering firms. The information flowed between the two sections. The Auctioneering section then used this info to there advantage.

Anybody that think's that giving Auctioneers details of AIP or your funds details are not living in the real world. The assumption that people bid houses up without funds is deluded. The ideal you have to give a deposit to bid is stupid as well.

Bass Reeves

snow_bunny wrote: »

Something like this:

1. If you want to bid on a house, you must register with your ID (which is hidden from all but the estate agent and an independent body who are free to inspect the logs during audit).

2.You must add your solicitor verified AIP offer to your registered profile. This may be redacted.

3. You must pay a 5k deposit which is non refundable if you pull out of the bidding, even if you're an under bidder.

4. Once sale agreed, your deposit can be kept as a holding deposit and later refunded when signing contracts.

5. If the engineers report returns serious issues, you can chose to renegotiate the price or walk away and have your deposit refunded. Same goes for legal issues outside of the buyers control.

6. Upon going sale agreed, all other bidders have their deposit returned.

This system would really cut out time wasters and fraud. You'd have to be serious to even bid on a house and it would be great for the vendors and agents too because they'd know they had strong buyers.

1 why
2 grand
3 wtf should you not get s deposit back if you were an underbidder
4 no issue
5 every buyer would use engineer reports to negotiate down price or walk away from contract similar with legals

3&6 are a contradiction