Auctioneera wrote: » All estate agents in Ireland are regulated by the PSRA. We are required by law to disclose the current offers on a property. We put all latest offers on our website and think that every estate agent should do this.
c.p.w.g.w wrote: » Good luck trying to get an estate agent doing that tho. I was looking a gaff before Xmas last year, made an offer and was declined and I asked for the above and they rang me back to literally laugh at my request...house is still for sale and my buddy who was selling didn't go with this EA
Auctioneera wrote: » Be sure to ask the estate agent to email you the current situation in relation to offers ie what, if any, offers are there currently on the property. Get this in writing as an unscrupulous agent may say there are offers when there are not. This is known as "ghost bidding." If there are no offers on the property, then obviously don't offer over the asking price.
Maz2016 wrote: » Was talking to an estate agent today regarding a 3 bed property I liked. The asking price is 185k. He sent me a video (very detailed in fairness) showing every aspect of the duplex apartment. Even down to where power points/tv points were etc. Told him I was interested. He has arranged a viewing for next week as it’s within the 5k. The current owners and the EA are happy for me to tour the property while the owners wait outside and the EA will be at the door. I asked him was there much interest. He said I’ll be the 4th viewing. I asked about price. He said put it this way - no point going in under 195k. I was a little taken a back. I am a first time buyer so pretty new and I’m experienced but I would have been thinking of offering on the lines of 160-165k as a first offer. Am I deluded?
Julissa Bitter Jeep wrote: » So you've no incentive to get the best price possible for your client?
cnocbui wrote: » Work out what it would cost you to buy a piece of land and have someone build something on it with the same floor area to the same level of finish, and you will have your answer.
cnocbui wrote: » The amount of energy is essentially no different. If you add 10 more houses to an existing route, the An Post driver doesn't drive any further. The amount of time might increase marginally, but could be more than offset by requiring houses to have a roadside mailbox, like I do, rather than most of the farms and houses on my road that don't have one and expect the mail to be delivered to their door. You get this same nonsense argument endlessly on Boards from the urbanites. Oh, the cost of a one-off house in the country is so much more to society to provide services for. Absolute rubbish. I live in a one-off on a rural road. There was already a power line running down the road, there was already a phone line running down the road, there was already a road, there was already a school. These things are already there, and have to be to service farms. What my living here actually did was average down the cost of providing services to the existing farms. Oh, and I provided my own well and water supply so no cost there. High density accommodation is great for pandemics, crime and other social aberrations.
Auctioneera wrote: » We're a fixed fee agency - no incentive to drive prices higher and even if we wanted to, we couldn't as all latest offers published transparently on our website. As mentioned previously, the buyers on here have a financial incentive to talk down the market - should they be banned too. Should we vet every participant to ensure that they are financially neutral to all market outcomes? In that case, we'd need to kick off all buyers, sellers and renters. We all have financial skin in the housing game. So let's accept that and discuss each point on its merits.
Padre_Pio wrote: » I don't know and don't care. The facts are there whether you want to buy them or not.
smurgen wrote: » Not sure I understand where your questions are coming from you seem particularly peeved. The idea of people switching up how they work and live seems to annoy you. Don't shoot the messenger. And if you don't agree it's fine. I'm not trying to convince you.
Diarmuid wrote: » I think you are conflating a number of things here 1. The idea that WFH means everyone moves to the country, I want to WFH but live in a city and I'm not on my own 2. That it costs more to provide services in a centralized high density location. I suspect the opposite is true. The reality is that taxes would have to increase if everyone wanted to live in their one off house in the country while receiving the same public services they left behind in the city 3. That public services are being provided for the benefit of companies as opposed to the people who live there.
BluePlanet wrote: » Population density is efficient. Low density is wasteful. Imagine a postman delivering letters. How much energy and time they must consume to deliver letters to 1000 households in the country, compared to a high density city.
Cyrus wrote: » Fair enough I was more thinking of in the village prices rise steeply that’s a drive everywhere house but take the point
[Deleted User] wrote: » https://www.daft.ie/wicklow/houses-for-sale/enniskerry/oaksville-annacrivey-enniskerry-wicklow-2329443/ to start...
Cyrus wrote: » Don’t think a million goes quite that far in EnnisKerry
GreeBo wrote: » Not for a tech company, sorry but I dont buy that at all. Facebook, google, etc these companies were born from tech, driven by tech and owned by tech, they dont have any hangups about relying on tech to enable WFH. Clearly there are other reasons why everyone in these companies isnt working from home. Why is silicon valley even a thing if you dont need to have these people all together?
[Deleted User] wrote: » These properties at that price are an absolute disgrace! If I had that much money to spend on a house, I'd be off to Enniskerry to get a 2 acre site and a big detached house as quickly as possible!
GreeBo wrote: » What percentage of facebook employees were WFH 100% of the time in January? Whats changed? Did the people in Facebook not know about the technology that has existed for a decade?
Cyrus wrote: » these would have been a hard sell a few months back, very hard to see them shifting at over 1m a piece. Location is ok, site is cramped though, and even though the houses are big, the rooms look small, im guessing could be 4 floors, size of gardens will put a family off and 4 floors wont entice local downsizershttps://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/st-paul-s-square-adelaide-road-glenageary-dublin/4407651
Pivot Eoin wrote: » They probably will tbh. I enquired about a 3Bed new build near there recently and it was 895k. In terms of the area, A family member sold a 5 Bed near to there recently around the €1m mark... it took them about 4 years to complete the sale. Now the house needed a bit of TLC.
Padre_Pio wrote: » All I can take out of the last few hundred posts on this thread is that nobody knows for sure. In 2007 there was outright denial things would change. In 2008 they said we'd have a soft landing. in 2009 people really woke up. I know this is different (a pandession according to David MacWilliams) but to me it looks a lot of the same.
Claw Hammer wrote: » There is no need for a garden in that location unless there are very small children involved. Working professional couples with teenage and up children would be the target market.