EA Requesting an Inappropriate Level of Information

irelandrover

SupaCat95 wrote: »

Look at it the other way, ever play cards? You keep them close to your chest. You dont show your cards until the last minute. Once they know your limit that is their goal.

But this is a new development with a set price. So knowing that you can afford more doesn't have any benefit for the EA.

in a situation where you could end up bidding then i agree and a letter from your bank stating you can cover the asking price should suffice.

SupaCat95

irelandrover wrote: »

But this is a new development with a set price. .

No its not just new builds, its rentals and second hand houses too.

RotaryPhone

irelandrover wrote: »

But this is a new development with a set price. So knowing that you can afford more doesn't have any benefit for the EA.

in a situation where you could end up bidding then i agree and a letter from your bank stating you can cover the asking price should suffice.

I've been asked for this for 2nd hand properties as well as new builds. One estate agent even went so far as to ask me to provide my pin for my Help to Buy application. All of this over email, which is one of the least secure methods of transmitting information. And this was just for a viewing.

Ace2007

irelandrover wrote: »

I might be reading it wrong but isnt it just you have to provide proof of funds. So if funding with a mortgage you provide the approval in principle. If funding from savings you show you have the savings?

this doesnt seem like an over the top request.

Let's say you are a cash buyer and have 1m in the bank wanting to buy a house. You go to view these new builds, show your bank account statement. The EA now knows your rich. For whatever reason you don't buy the new build, but you see a 2nd hand house that you like that the same EA looks after, he now knows that you have the money to pay over the tops for this house if you really want it. Is this fair?

javaboy

Ace2007 wrote: »

Let's say you are a cash buyer and have 1m in the bank wanting to buy a house. You go to view these new builds, show your bank account statement. The EA now knows your rich. For whatever reason you don't buy the new build, but you see a 2nd hand house that you like that the same EA looks after, he now knows that you have the money to pay over the tops for this house if you really want it. Is this fair?

Exactly. And it's not even a far fetched or convoluted example. There are only a handful of estate agents operating in any one area so you're likely to cross paths with the same ones again and again if you're house hunting for a while.

Ace2007

javaboy wrote: »

A financial penalty only kicks in when the winning bidder can't back it up. It doesn't do anything about the dodgy bidders who whipped up the price. I also suspect it would be nearly impossible to enforce given all the legitimate reasons there are to pull out of a sale.

There shouldn't be a legitimate reason to pull out if your serious in the first place. You go to an auction - once the hammer goes down - it's your house - there are no legitimate reasons to pull out then. So if it works in that scenario it could work in this if the will was there.

Second option would be to pay a nominal fee in advance to bid on a house. If you think about buying shares - There is a detailed process involved for account an account from AML to KYC - even if it's just €100 worth of shares, whereas at the the moment any Tom, Dick or Harry can go bidding on a 500k house with no questions asked.

Ace2007

javaboy wrote: »

Exactly. And it's not even a far fetched or convoluted example. There are only a handful of estate agents operating in any one area so you're likely to cross paths with the same ones again and again if you're house hunting for a while.

And more so - Sherry fitz is country wide albeit i'm not sure how they are all connected, but whose to say the systems aren't connected and that everyone in the country could check my budget etc.

average_runner

10pennymixup wrote: »

It rules out time wasters and they'll blame the pandemic.

But I wonder do the REITS have to provide such info when they're buying out whole estates.:rolleyes:

Usually all their accounts are published

javaboy

Ace2007 wrote: »

There shouldn't be a legitimate reason to pull out if your serious in the first place. You go to an auction - once the hammer goes down - it's your house - there are no legitimate reasons to pull out then. So if it works in that scenario it could work in this if the will was there.

There are loads of legitimate reasons to pull out. So many things would need to be in place before this system could work e.g. 3rd party independent survey paid for by the seller, insurance etc. Banks can decline to provide full loan approval through no fault of the borrower. Buyers can lose jobs unexpectedly or experience any number of unforeseen circumstances.

Ace2007 wrote: »

Second option would be to pay a nominal fee in advance to bid on a house. If you think about buying shares - There is a detailed process involved for account an account from AML to KYC - even if it's just €100 worth of shares, whereas at the the moment any Tom, Dick or Harry can go bidding on a 500k house with no questions asked.

Who receives this nominal fee? I would set my asking price low to collect as many of these fees as possible

Ace2007

javaboy wrote: »

There are loads of legitimate reasons to pull out. So many things would need to be in place before this system could work e.g. 3rd party independent survey paid for by the seller, insurance etc. Banks can decline to provide full loan approval through no fault of the borrower. Buyers can lose jobs unexpectedly or experience any number of unforeseen circumstances.



Who receives this nominal fee? I would set my asking price low to collect as many of these fees as possible

But all those scenarios that you mention could happen when buying at auction, but it's too sh!t. The minimum you'll lose is the deposit and probably more.

mrslancaster

Graham wrote: »

Can't disagree with any of that really but the more people (particularly those with a large audience) that shine a light on the subject, the more likely the DPC is to step in.

Undoubtedly, individuals holding the EAs to account via formal requests and follow-up complaints to the DPC are the best approach.

Doesn't the EA need to carry out AML checks before they have any transactions with a new customer? They are one of the designated categories so maybe this information is collected because of that.

Since March this year, Letting Agents are also designated for certain amounts.

javaboy

Ace2007 wrote: »

But all those scenarios that you mention could happen when buying at auction, but it's too sh!t. The minimum you'll lose is the deposit and probably more.

If the same risk level that exists at auction for (primarily) investors also applied to the owner occupier market, things would get pretty bad. Deposits would be lost left and right.

We'd need an overhaul of our conveyancing, surveying, insurance and more before that could happen.

I think it would be so much simpler for banks to issue a letter on demand certifying you for each bid you want to place.

Graham

mrslancaster wrote: »

Doesn't the EA need to carry out AML checks before they have any transactions with a new customer? They are one of the designated categories so maybe this information is collected because of that.

Do many people pay 5+ figures sums of money for a viewing?

Added

No of course not, it's not a financial transaction.

Whatever AML requirements there may be, they would be required for the buyer/seller. It would be absurd for an EA (or anyone else) to suggest AML checks were necessary for a viewing.

Ace2007

mrslancaster wrote: »

Doesn't the EA need to carry out AML checks before they have any transactions with a new customer? They are one of the designated categories so maybe this information is collected because of that.

Then why does the housing minster think it's wrong...

Graham wrote: »

This one is particularly relevant, thanks MacronvFrugals for the earlier post


https://twitter.com/DarraghOBrienTD/status/1404459482613260294?s=20

mrslancaster

Graham wrote: »

Do many people pay 5+ figures sums of money for a viewing?

Added

No of course not, it's not a financial transaction.

Whatever AML requirements there may be, they would be required for the buyer/seller. It would be absurd for an EA (or anyone else) to suggest AML checks were necessary for a viewing.

Think I read that Savills are asking for €10k deposit to be paid on the day.

Graham

mrslancaster wrote: »

Think I read that Savills are asking for €10k deposit to be paid on the day.

I would assume at that stage the viewing has completed and the viewers have decided to become purchasers.

Obviously at the point you decide to purchase, additional data is necessary. Not beforehand on the off-chance.

mrslancaster

Graham wrote: »

I would assume at that stage the viewing has completed and the viewers have decided to become purchasers.

Obviously at the point you decide to purchase, additional data is necessary. Not beforehand on the off-chance.

I'm open to correction but afaik the CDD needs to be carried out before any transactions happen so if Savills want to collect €10K on the day, they would probably want all the paperwork checked and verified before the viewing day. Dont know though, just a possibility as to why they feel they are able to ask for all that information.

niniboots

All the publicity didn't make a difference, nor the ministers tweet or 'strongly worded letter, we were requested to upload similar financial details to an email on a different release of houses today, from the same EA. I have a serious problem with this, we haven't thus far but it is also so difficult now in every position. They will block you from buying & as anyone who is actively searching knows there are thousands looking. There are only 14 houses being released in this development and they know if you don't disclose or upload this info they don't really care, as they will sell them 10 times over.

Yes, things can go wrong, I appreciate that, through no fault of ours we had to pull out of a new build, various ancillary building related issues. Another EA kept our booking deposit for a longer period, even though solicitor contracts had been returned, we had to chase them but remain polite etc., as they have a monopoly on new builds in the areas we are searching, which at this point is pretty much anywhere.

At this point, this is just somewhere to vent....

I really wish we were in a position to skip over this mania, it's ridiculously over priced, jammed in lego box houses that we can't even view without disclosing what we had for breakfast, but we can't and need to buy a home. It's just unfortunate for anyone in our position, I don't believe anyone would actually justify this to view a house, if we weren't in a 'housing crisis' and still recovering from a pandemic.

Graham

mrslancaster wrote: »

I'm open to correction but afaik the CDD

There is no transaction involved in a viewing.

I go, I have a look.

A transaction may or may not follow.

Busi_Girl08

Graham wrote: »

There is no transaction involved in a viewing.

I go, I have a look.

A transaction may or may not follow.

There *were* transactions involved in viewings during Level 5 of restrictions, to enjoy the privilege of seeing the property you're willing to pay over a quarter of a million for over 30+ years you had to win a bidding war first, and then for out the deposit before stepping through the door.

The same applied with new builds too, but since early May those restrictions have lifted, which makes Savill's using Covid in their list of excuses even more ridiculous.

mrslancaster

Graham wrote: »

There is no transaction involved in a viewing.

I go, I have a look.

A transaction may or may not follow.

Agree absolutely but Savills want €10k on the viewing day if you are a buyer and you decide to book one of the 44 houses.

They need the AML/CDD information before they can accept the €10k from you. That's the transaction. If you arrive at the viewing and love the house then you need to have provided the information beforehand so the EA can comply with that regulation. There are AML regulations for the Solicitor at a later stage in the process - they are both designated.

BTW, I think its ott but they obviously believe it's ok.

Graham

mrslancaster wrote: »

Agree absolutely but Savills want €10k on the viewing day if you are a buyer and you decide to book one of the 44 houses.

I'm struggling to see what's confusing you here.

Until you decide to buy, you're not a buyer.

If you decide during or after the viewing that you want to buy, things change and more information is appropriate.

mrslancaster

Graham wrote: »

I'm struggling to see what's confusing you here.

Until you decide to buy, you're not a buyer.

If you decide during or after the viewing that you want to buy, things change and more information is appropriate.

I'm not confused. Of course youre not a buyer until you make a decision to buy but if you go to the viewing AND decide to buy you have to pay a booking deposit to Savills. Afaik, the EA cant take it unless they have their AML/CDD done so that may be the reason they want prospective buyers to supply the information before the viewing day. Maybe they're trying to streamline the booking process, maybe propsective buyers dont want to be spending time at the viewing filling in forms before they pay over the money, I don't know the answer to that.

If there's any EA's who know the rules they might let us know.

Graham

mrslancaster wrote: »

The EA cant take it unless they have their AML/CDD done so that may be the reason they want prospective buyers to supply the information before the viewing day.

So we're back to the just-in-case you want to buy scenario.

Fails both the data minimisation and purpose elements of DP legislation.

Added:

It's being reported that the DPC has been in touch with the agency for more information and the agency are claiming the additional data is required because of restricted viewings due to covid.

It's going to be interesting to see if the DPC agrees.

Also interesting to note nobody is claiming this is anyway connected to AML requirements.

Calahonda52

http://www.psr.ie/en/PSRA/Quick%20Guide%20-%20PSPs%20Key%20AML%20Responsibilities%20-%20Updated%20March%202021.docx.pdf/Files/Quick%20Guide%20-%20PSPs%20Key%20AML%20Responsibilities%20-%20Updated%20March%202021.docx.pdf

and
http://www.psr.ie/en/psra/pages/wp18000002

CDD threshold is 15k

The AML is a risk assessment, not asking you to prove how you have to launder

Graham

The agency involved aren't even claiming this is an AML thing.

The claim is it's necessary to manage a restricted number of viewings. As if there's no alternative to doing that which wouldn't require financial info.

Bass Reeves

mrslancaster wrote: »

Agree absolutely but Savills want €10k on the viewing day if you are a buyer and you decide to book one of the 44 houses.

They need the AML/CDD information before they can accept the €10k from you. That's the transaction. If you arrive at the viewing and love the house then you need to have provided the information beforehand so the EA can comply with that regulation. There are AML regulations for the Solicitor at a later stage in the process - they are both designated.

BTW, I think its ott but they obviously believe it's ok.

AML/CDD do not require any j for regarding any other information other than that about the deposit. The requirements would be like opening a bank account, driving licence/ passport, proof of address and PPS number. Unless the funds are in cash no other information is required

Any EA trying to useAML/ CDD as an excuse for this is BSing

KrustyUCC

irelandrover wrote: »

I might be reading it wrong but isnt it just you have to provide proof of funds. So if funding with a mortgage you provide the approval in principle. If funding from savings you show you have the savings?

this doesnt seem like an over the top request.

Nope they require proof of

AIP
HTB
All of your savings

So they will know exactly how much money you have and all the other applicants

On one hand yes they are getting proof that people can afford the houses

However this is a viewing not an offer

So this is 44 houses in phase one

Lets say phase two of 50 houses was going to be on sale for €15k more than phase one as often happens

Savills now know they can look at their list and pick out 50 clients who could afford €30k more than the €15k extra

Will Savills keep the price the same?

very doubtful the price will go up the €45k

If a client is bidding on a second hand house in the area

Savills know that the client has total amount of €x

Savills will keep the seller trying to get more out of that client as they know they can afford it

They can also get into non existent bidding wars as can happen

This information will be exploited by EAs and is setting a very bad precedent for viewings

irelandrover

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Nope they require proof of

AIP
HTB
All of your savings

So they will know exactly how much money you have and all the other applicants

I read it as they want proof of funds which can include AIp, savings, HTB. If the AIP covers the costs then no requirement to show savings.

jamon_serrano

As a matter of fact all the prices rose buy at least 20k from the previous phase.


I get it that is bad they ask for proof of funds with such a level of detail. What is worse they sent an email a few months ago asking what is your purchase level to test the waters.


On the other hand how do you deal with 5k prospective buyers that want to buy 44 houses? There is 1 of each house type to show only. So assuming every buyer wants to go for a viewing and it takes 20 mins each split by 2 house types it gives us 34 days of viewings non stop 24x7. It is impossible to manage and understandable they want to filter as much as possible.


Again, not on their side but the market is crazy