EA Requesting an Inappropriate Level of Information

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

A story just published in the IT demonstrating the mania phase of the market cycle we are in. Savills claim it is due to covid restrictions but that is bull at this stage of reopening. It's tragic to see this, lemmings scurrying to the edge of the cliff.

I think a balance is required in terms of what info should be provided in order to filter out time waster or people who do not have funding in place.

I don’t think it is fair to refer to people buying a home as “lemmings”.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

GDPR allows for gathering of data if relevant and this is relevant. They just cannot share it or keep it indefinitely. No laws even vaguely been broken here. People really do make up their own fears

That's an over-simplification at best.

"Organisations must only process the personal data that they need to achieve its processing purposes. "
https://itgovernance.eu/blog/en/the-gdpr-understanding-the-6-data-protection-principles

There's a big question as to whether the data they are seeking is the minimum required to achieve the processing purpose.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You can gather data all you like if people give it to you. GDPR is basically about what you do with it once you get it.

That is untrue.

Hubertj wrote: »

I think a balance is required in terms of what info should be provided in order to filter out time waster or people who do not have funding in place.

I don’t think it is fair to refer to people buying a home as “lemmings”.

Yes, it's not so much that they are rodent like, but the analogy was meant more that they are following a group blindly towards the edge of a cliff (i.e. desperation to get on the property ladder, with a stampede of others despite there being a cliff up ahead and the potential to fall off it being a reference to rising interest rates which appears to be entirely off the radar for a lot of people taking on mortgages - it's all about getting to that magic number of a deposit and getting the house that they can; "renting makes no sense compared to a mortgage", "your cousin just bought out in X").

https://www.thejournal.ie/savills-proof-of-funds-5466338-Jun2021/

OP, have we got the culprit?

As I said in a previous post, AIP, proof of HTB approval and availability of funds in the case of cash buyers should be more than plenty enough to screen prospective purchasers. Why an estate agent would require proof of savings when a mortgage provider has already provided AIP is curious unless same estate agent was trying to build a data profile of purchasers for subsequent phases under the cover of 'Covid'. No wonder estate agents have the poor reputation they have with carry on like this.

I can't believe how many people are willing to just hand over that level of information just to secure a viewing.

Also, as pointed out, 44 houses and thousands of interested buyers?

OK, so what do they do after the 44 houses are sold?

The EA with all this data, look at second hand houses they are selling in the area, look at the average amount and ratchet up the prices to meet the funds! Et Voila More commission for the EA! Easy peasy.

The market is already out of control, please lets not make it worse.

Slow down and think about who benefits in these situations, because it wont be joe soap purchaser.

scrumqueen wrote: »

I can't believe how many people are willing to just hand over that level of information just to secure a viewing.

Also, as pointed out, 44 houses and thousands of interested buyers?

OK, so what do they do after the 44 houses are sold?

The EA with all this data, look at second hand houses they are selling in the area, look at the average amount and ratchet up the prices to meet the funds! Et Voila More commission for the EA! Easy peasy.

The market is already out of control, please lets not make it worse.

Slow down and think about who benefits in these situations, because it wont be joe soap purchaser.

Savills' claimed in their statement that the info from failed applicants (and does that mean the thousands who don't make the first cut, or those who go sale agreed and have to pull out later on) will be "purged", but no mention of the data of the 44 successful, or what they'll do with the info before it's purged. (Savill's statement here: https://www.thejournal.ie/savills-proof-of-funds-5466338-Jun2021/)

Also, someone could send through their full AIP document, proof of savings, gifts, etc, but their mortgage application could easily fall through at loan offer stage (KBC pulling exceptions, for example, change in circumstances, etc), so the information they're requesting means bupkiss unless you're talking about a cash buyer with the money ready to go, making it very easy for them to cherry pick the "easy" sales. I know this happens already with 2nd hand sales during bidding but this is at a much grander scale and is just a depressing sign of the times.

Wondering have other EAs similar emails ready to go out for their next phases of new builds, but are waiting for DPC clarification and for Savill's to take the brunt of the heat first.

Dav010 wrote: »

Savills stated all data provided by those not successful in buying in this phase is deleted. Given the level of interest, it seems highly unlikely EAs would rely on this data to get paid.

I would say the 44 successful applicants benefit, and anyone who refused the information won’t.

They could still build a data set of the max budgets of all 5000 applicants before deleting. Just a simple list of € budget, not linked to any person so no gdpr issue in the list in of itself.

Again, it's not for these 44 houses, they will sell anyway at the price already advertised. It's for subsequent phases, or future properties in the area.

Mainly, it's to make sure this sh1te practice doesn't become accepted as the norm or in anyway acceptable.

scrumqueen wrote: »

Sorry now but just no. AIP is all that's needed. Its just a viewing.

Also why on earth would you the purchaser knowing it was outside your price range bother your hoop to go viewing a house during a pandemic?

Also with so much demand, all of this nonsense is just not required, the houses will sell regardless. Its data mining and price gouging. Simple As.

Oh I 100% agree, and I wouldn't send more than a redacted AIP, and I've been lucky to have never been asked until we were at sale sgreed stage.

I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of it all, and makes it much more favourable for cash buyers.

EA's gunna be EA's and i doubt they really even care that much to wait.

Yep, you're probably right More of this to come I reckon unless the DPC brings the hammer down hard on them (not likely).

JeffKenna wrote: »

No issue with providing that information if bidding, I don't think it's fair that some can push up a price without having the means to see through the purchase.

For a first viewing I don't think so however.

No issue giving your unredacted AIP letter to the estate agent whose job it is to get the best price for the seller?

I'd be all in favour of a system where bidders have to verify they can back up their bids with cash/loan but it would have to be a trusted 3rd party with appropriate privacy & safeguards in place. The seller's estate agent is 100% not that person.

Busi_Girl08 wrote: »

A letter from a solicitor/broker maybe? Adds extra pressure (and expense) to buyers to have to have a solicitor in place at such an early stage, and some solicitors only talk to you when sale agreed.

Tbh the mortgage provider should be offering this service. If you have AIP & you've proved your funds to the bank, there should be a simple PDF generator on the bank's portal for any amount you choose (up to your max).

I did the solicitor option when the EA wasn't happy with a redacted AIP (after going sale agreed) and they were ok with it but they thought we were being awkward. FWIW the solicitor told us we were smart not to give it out.

javaboy wrote: »

I'd be all in favour of a system where bidders have to verify they can back up their bids with cash/loan but it would have to be a trusted 3rd party with appropriate privacy & safeguards in place. The seller's estate agent is 100% not that person.

Either a system, or a financial penalty if the winning bidder pulls out.

JeffKenna wrote: »

Nope, no issue. Got a call before from a estate agent telling me a property I was bidding on had fell through. Went back to my previous bid and asked was I interested in it at that price. Sur that price was only inflated by a bidder without funds to actually buy.

Yeah I get you but if the EA knows your max budget, why wouldn't they just tell the seller what it is and to hold out for that amount regardless of other bidders?

Bidding can be a bit like bluffing at poker. They're asking to see your cards.

I think you're solving one problem while creating another potentially worse one.

Ace2007 wrote: »

Either a system, or a financial penalty if the winning bidder pulls out.

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.