EA Requesting an Inappropriate Level of Information

mrslancaster · 15-06-2021 4:28pm

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 · 15-06-2021 4:29pm

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 · 15-06-2021 4:32pm

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 · 15-06-2021 4:34pm

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 · 15-06-2021 4:45pm

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 · 15-06-2021 4:48pm

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 · 15-06-2021 4:53pm

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 · 15-06-2021 4:55pm

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 · 15-06-2021 4:55pm

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 · 15-06-2021 5:05pm

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 · 15-06-2021 5:06pm

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 · 15-06-2021 5:13pm

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 · 15-06-2021 5:30pm

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 · 15-06-2021 5:34pm

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 · 15-06-2021 6:13pm

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 · 15-06-2021 6:38pm

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 · 15-06-2021 9:29pm

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 · 16-06-2021 10:41am

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 · 16-06-2021 11:48am

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 · 16-06-2021 11:50am

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

Graham · 16-06-2021 12:09pm

jamon_serrano wrote: »

On the other hand how do you deal with 5k prospective buyers that want to buy 44 houses?

Apply online.

Pull 60 names at random

Run viewings

Rinse & repeat if necessary

KrustyUCC · 16-06-2021 12:43pm

irelandrover wrote: »

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.

Don't think so

"Potential buyers of a new property development in Dublin were asked to provide evidence of the full amount of mortgage approval as well as savings or gifts from family."

16-06-2021 1:15pm

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Don't think so

"Potential buyers of a new property development in Dublin were asked to provide evidence of the full amount of mortgage approval as well as savings or gifts from family."

The op contains the correspondence from the EA. It only asks for proof of funds, an lists the ways this “could” be presented.

“ This is proof that as a buyer, you have the financial means to purchase a property and we require proof of finance for the full purchase price. This COULD include:”

Reversal · 16-06-2021 1:16pm

irelandrover wrote: »

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.

Considering there is no such thing as a 100% mortgage. How could an AIP cover the cost without showing evidence of savings too?

16-06-2021 1:18pm

Reversal wrote: »

Considering there is no such thing as a 100% mortgage. How could an AIP cover the cost without showing evidence of savings too?

They only ask that you show savings necessary to fund purchase, a bit of lateral thinking and you could show just what you need to show.

16-06-2021 3:00pm

PSRA have essentially said they are aware of this practice but has no direct role in operations of agents (and that there is no provisions in any property law around requesting financial info). They say agents should be guided by Data Protection Commission.

Which begs the bigger question, if the psra don’t have a direct role in agents operations - then who does? Who actually regulates them? Is it a case of buyers and sellers having to shout loud enough on social media to cause outrage?

Edit - link added to PSRA statement -

https://twitter.com/OCallaghanCian/status/1405146235825233920?s=20

Graham · 16-06-2021 3:03pm

Deleted User wrote: »

if the psra don’t have a direct role in agents operations - then who does? Who actually regulates them?

That doesn't say they're not regulated by the PSRA.

16-06-2021 3:09pm

Graham wrote: »

That doesn't say they're not regulated by the PSRA.

It doesn’t, but it does read like the PSRA washing their hands of the situation and hoping the DPC does the job for them.

hi! · 16-06-2021 4:20pm

The issue here is they wouldn’t even accept a letter from bank/mortgage broker to confirm you have the funds available to meet the cost. They wanted to see all your personal information, all your savings, your full AIP amount. Nothing could be redacted. How can people be justifying this

The 5k number I’d imagine is people who registered interest? I did myself but when I saw the costs/ the actual houses and area quickly lost all interest in it. Concrete jungle. All houses are terraced too unless you pay extra for an end of terrace. I wouldn’t imagine they still have 5k interested.

KrustyUCC · 16-06-2021 4:24pm

Dav010 wrote: »

The op contains the correspondence from the EA. It only asks for proof of funds, an lists the ways this “could” be presented.

“ This is proof that as a buyer, you have the financial means to purchase a property and we require proof of finance for the full purchase price. This COULD include:”

Apart from the fact that "It is unfortunately not adequate to state that you have the savings or will qualify for the Help to Buy grant, you need to provide evidence.

Please note that if submitting letters from your mortgage broker, the loan amount must be visible. We cannot accept a redacted Approval in Principle"

If you have AIP it needs to be visible
If you HTB you need proof
Any any all savings need proof

It's not just one thing it's all of the above

16-06-2021 4:28pm

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Apart from the fact that "It is unfortunately not adequate to state that you have the savings or will qualify for the Help to Buy grant, you need to provide evidence.

Please note that if submitting letters from your mortgage broker, the loan amount must be visible. We cannot accept a redacted Approval in Principle"

If you have AIP it needs to be visible
If you HTB you need proof
Any any all savings need proof

It's not just one thing it's all of the above

It’s whatever you need, to show proof of funds to buy a set price house. They are not asking you to show savings beyond those necessary to buy the house.

javaboy · 16-06-2021 4:55pm

Dav010 wrote: »

It’s whatever you need, to show proof of funds to buy a set price house. They are not asking you to show savings beyond those necessary to buy the house.

I think you’re wilfully misunderstanding what’s going on here. Unless you’re a cash buyer, the required proof of capacity to buy is, at the very least, an unredacted AIP showing your max approved loan.

Even if you were a cash buyer, what’s the plan? Move just the right amount of money into a separate account just for this purpose and only show them that?

It’s a complete overreach by the EA. They know it. We all know it. Desperate buyers know it but have little choice but to play ball.

Can’t believe anyone is defending this practice.

Graham · 16-06-2021 5:43pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It doesn’t, but it does read like the PSRA washing their hands of the situation and hoping the DPC does the job for them.

It's a data protection issue, it's appropriate that it's addressed by the DPC.

16-06-2021 5:48pm

javaboy wrote: »

I think you’re wilfully misunderstanding what’s going on here. Unless you’re a cash buyer, the required proof of capacity to buy is, at the very least, an unredacted AIP showing your max approved loan.

Even if you were a cash buyer, what’s the plan? Move just the right amount of money into a separate account just for this purpose and only show them that?

It’s a complete overreach by the EA. They know it. We all know it. Desperate buyers know it but have little choice but to play ball.

Can’t believe anyone is defending this practice.

I understand what is going on here.

I understand there are 100 applicants for every single house in that development, tens of thousands of people trying to buy houses today. Don’t stand in your own way, every buyer hates the thought of some twit who bids beyond their means and wishes the EA was more diligent in checking proof of funds.

This is a launch where deposits on purchases are accepted on the day from those who can show proof of funds. Yes, transfer exactly the right amount you need into a savings account, jeez you can do this using your phone, it only takes a couple of seconds, then give the info you need to help yourself. This was just discussed on The Last Word, they said Savills Compliance checked to see if what they are doing is legal, and as they purge data of those who don’t buy, they are not in breach of DP.

So, stand on your principles, pay rent, or help yourself, your choice.

javaboy · 16-06-2021 6:01pm

Dav010 wrote: »

I understand what is going on here.

I understand there are 100 applicants for every single house in that development, tens of thousands of people trying to buy houses today. Don’t stand in your own way, every buyer hates the thought of some twit who bids beyond their means and wishes the EA was more diligent in checking proof of funds.

This is a launch where deposits on purchases are accepted on the day from those who can show proof of funds. Yes, transfer exactly the right amount you need into a savings account, jeez you can do this using your phone, it only takes a couple of seconds, then give the info you need to help yourself. This was just discussed on The Last Word, they said Savills Compliance checked to see if what they are doing is legal, and as they purge data of those who don’t buy, they are not in breach of DP.

So, stand on your principles, pay rent, or help yourself, your choice.

Once again, showing JUST your saved cash deposit is NOT sufficient for proof of capacity to buy. They are saying they want more than that. And if you do happen to be a cash buyer, most banks won’t let you move hundreds of thousands between your accounts on your phone.

Other less invasive alternative ways to prove your capacity to buy have been suggested.

I’m a home owner with no skin in this game but I think this stinks of taking advantage of buyers in a desperate situation. The people most affected by this are the ones in the weakest position to do anything about it. It’s disgusting.

Do you not think redacted AIP, a bank letter for the exact amount, or a solicitor’s letter would meet the requirements without disadvantaging the buyers? Do you have any argument against one of these suggestions instead?

Graham · 16-06-2021 6:05pm

Dav010 wrote: »

This was just discussed on The Last Word, they said Savills Compliance checked to see if what they are doing is legal, and as they purge data of those who don’t buy, they are not in breach of DP.

It's not really the opinion of Savills Compliance that matters here, it's the DPC.

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

16-06-2021 6:12pm

javaboy wrote: »

Once again, showing JUST your saved cash deposit is NOT sufficient for proof of capacity to buy. They are saying they want more than that. And if you do happen to be a cash buyer, most banks won’t let you move hundreds of thousands between your accounts on your phone.

Other less invasive alternative ways to prove your capacity to buy have been suggested.

I’m a home owner with no skin in this game but I think this stinks of taking advantage of buyers in a desperate situation. The people most affected by this are the ones in the weakest position to do anything about it. It’s disgusting.

Do you not think redacted AIP, a bank letter for the exact amount, or a solicitor’s letter would meet the requirements without disadvantaging the buyers? Do you have any argument against one of these suggestions instead?

Did you read the op? it says they require proof of funds for the purchase, and list the ways this could be presented. If you are a cash buyer, you know in advance what you need to show on your statement, it is not difficult to move cash between your own accounts, even if it means a phone call/visit to the bank, it is hardly a hardship.

It really doesn’t matter what way you suggest things should be done, anyone not replying with the EA/Seller request will not buy a house. If this was a bidding process, I could understand the reluctance to show your AIP amount, but these are fixed price houses, does it matter if you are approved for €20k above that fixed price? No it doesn’t.

If you don’t want to show that you have the funds to buy a house that will likely sell on the day you view it, so be it, the people who do buy obviously will have the advantage because they were willing to show proof of funds. Good for them, tough for you.

16-06-2021 6:14pm

Graham wrote: »

It's not really the opinion of Savills Compliance that matters here, it's the DPC.

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

I suppose Graham it’s like a legal opinion is worthless if the Court disagrees. Yet a solicitor still gives the opinion based on their understanding of the law.

MSVforever · 16-06-2021 6:49pm

hi! wrote: »

The issue here is they wouldn’t even accept a letter from bank/mortgage to confirm you have the funds available to meet the cost. They wanted to see all your personal information, all your savings, your full AIP amount. Nothing could be redacted. How can people be justifying this
The 5k number I’d imagine is people who registered interest? I did myself but when I saw the costs/ the actual houses and area quickly lost all interest in it. Concrete jungle. All houses are terraced too unless you pay extra for an end of terrace. I wouldn’t imagine they still have 5k interested.

Are we talking about Somerton in Lucan/Adamstown?

hi! · 16-06-2021 8:50pm

MSVforever wrote: »

Are we talking about Somerton in Lucan/Adamstown?

Yes

ec18 · 17-06-2021 9:13am

Dav010 wrote: »

I suppose Graham it’s like a legal opinion is worthless if the Court disagrees. Yet a solicitor still gives the opinion based on their understanding of the law.

Well Savills were hardly going to be say oops our bad, if it wasn't for you pesky kids we would have gotten away it?

Savills have been at this for years in the rental market asking for 6 months bank statements, etc for a 1 year lease. They are just making a foray into purchasing market now with their unreasonable requests.

javaboy · 17-06-2021 9:25am

Dav010 wrote: »

Did you read the op? it says they require proof of funds for the purchase, and list the ways this could be presented. If you are a cash buyer, you know in advance what you need to show on your statement, it is not difficult to move cash between your own accounts, even if it means a phone call/visit to the bank, it is hardly a hardship.

Ok. I'll just move half a million around between my accounts just to secure a viewing. :rolleyes:

It really doesn’t matter what way you suggest things should be done, anyone not replying with the EA/Seller request will not buy a house.

What's your point? This is a discussion forum. I'm suggesting better alternatives. Obviously Savills don't care what I think.

If this was a bidding process, I could understand the reluctance to show your AIP amount, but these are fixed price houses, does it matter if you are approved for €20k above that fixed price? No it doesn’t.

This has been dealt with again and again. 5,000 interested parties. 44 houses. If even 1,000 of those buyers gives their details, that leaves 956 people who have given their financial records or unredacted AIP to Savills. Assuming a large number of those are using a mortgage, the auctioneer now knows their budget.

They know their maximum budget.
Savills know their negotiating position.
An estate agent who may be selling them a different house later and whose job it is to get the most money for the seller, will know their maximum budget.

I'm repeating myself here because you seem to be missing or ignoring that point. It's not some hypothetical scenario. Most of the applicants will be unsuccessful because there are only 44 houses and will now be back on the hunt for houses, new or second hand.

If you don’t want to show that you have the funds to buy a house that will likely sell on the day you view it, so be it, the people who do buy obviously will have the advantage because they were willing to show proof of funds. Good for them, tough for you.

Good for 44 people.
Good for Savills.
Good for future sellers who use Savills.
Tough for the people willing to show proof who aren't in the 44.
Tough for the people who saw it as overreach and decided to move on.

It's amazing to me that estate agents are already considered an unscrupulous bunch by many and yet some people are willing cheerleaders to give them more power.

Busi_Girl08 · 17-06-2021 9:32am

Re the above, Savill's did say they will purge the data of the unsuccessful applicants, but it does still beg the question what will they do with the data before purging. They will still be getting the data.

Will they redact the contact details and set up a lovely spreadsheet of budgets available of different buyers, their demographics, etc and use that for setting prices? No mention of how the information will be used before purging, and *when* it will be purged - Immediately after this phase, a week later, a couple of months later after some number crunching?

No transparency from Savill's at all on this which makes it all the more concerning.

Smouse156 · 17-06-2021 9:50am

Dav010 wrote: »

I understand what is going on here.

I understand there are 100 applicants for every single house in that development, tens of thousands of people trying to buy houses today. Don’t stand in your own way, every buyer hates the thought of some twit who bids beyond their means and wishes the EA was more diligent in checking proof of funds.

This is a launch where deposits on purchases are accepted on the day from those who can show proof of funds. Yes, transfer exactly the right amount you need into a savings account, jeez you can do this using your phone, it only takes a couple of seconds, then give the info you need to help yourself. This was just discussed on The Last Word, they said Savills Compliance checked to see if what they are doing is legal, and as they purge data of those who don’t buy, they are not in breach of DP.

So, stand on your principles, pay rent, or help yourself, your choice.

I think you have a clear lack of understanding of the law. This request for information WILL be deemed excessive, especially in the context of a viewing. Not everybody that views the houses will want to buy them, even with good intentions. They might find somewhere else instead etc…then they have handed loads of sensitive personal information to an estate agent with sub-HSE security.

I think anyone that has any grasp of compliance and GDPR will see this information request is excessive.

If however, someone wishes to put down a deposit then unredacted AIP or letter from a solicitor to confirm proof of funds should be sufficient. Looking for gift letters from family members is a joke!

Everyone wants to get rid of the tyre kickers but you have to be reasonable and follow the law!

17-06-2021 10:12am

Smouse156 wrote: »

I think you have a clear lack of understanding of the law. This request for information WILL be deemed excessive, especially in the context of a viewing. Not everybody that views the houses will want to buy them, even with good intentions. They might find somewhere else instead etc…then they have handed loads of sensitive personal information to an estate agent with sub-HSE security.

I think anyone that has any grasp of compliance and GDPR will see this information request is excessive.

If however, someone wishes to put down a deposit then unredacted AIP or letter from a solicitor to confirm proof of funds should be sufficient. Looking for gift letters from family members is a joke!

Everyone wants to get rid of the tyre kickers but you have to be reasonable and follow the law!

I’m not sure that your understanding of the law guarantees the outcome of a DP investigation. I would hope that the professionals Savills pay to advise on compliance know more than you and I about data protection.

Irrespective of the legality, the fact is that this is the criteria being used to sieve through an over subscribed launch. Don’t give the info, move on, but a lot of people will. There are reports this morning that properties are rising €500 per week, so I suppose you have to help yourself or stay renting.

In relation to Savills knowing what you can afford, is this useful? The next development they advertise, there will be hundreds or thousands of applicants, after the price has been set, do you think they are going to go looking for your application from a year ago? The paranoia is staggering.

MacDanger · 17-06-2021 10:16am

Dav010 wrote: »

In relation to Savills knowing what you can afford, is this useful? The next development they advertise, there will be hundreds or thousands of applicants, after the price has been set, do you think they are going to go looking for your application from a year ago? The paranoia is staggering.

So if you were in Savill's and (assuming for a second that data protection laws don't exist) you received information about 5000 prospective buyers and how much money they could afford to pay, you wouldn't use that information in any way to inform the setting of price for the next release of houses in that area? Really??

Smouse156 · 17-06-2021 10:24am

Dav010 wrote: »

I’m not sure that your understanding of the law guarantees the outcome of a DP investigation. I would hope that the professionals Savills pay to advise on compliance know more than you and I about data protection.

Irrespective of the legality, the fact is that this is the criteria being used to sieve through an over subscribed launch. Don’t give the info, move on, but a lot of people will. There are reports this morning that properties are rising €500 per week, so I suppose you have to help yourself or stay renting.

In relation to Savills knowing what you can afford, is this useful? The next development they advertise, there will be hundreds or thousands of applicants, after the price has been set, do you think they are going to go looking for your application from a year ago? The paranoia is staggering.

Firstly as I work in this area, I probably do know more than the compliance staff in Savills! The DPC will rule that this information was excessive and demand they delete it. That’s the outcome!

Secondly, if they have data on 5000 people with budgets, yes this information is extremely useful in setting prices by knowing the min-max budgets of a range of Dublin buyers. Not in the current phase of Somerton but naturally this won’t be the last estate they ever sell. They could even sell this data to other estate agents to help set prices. I think you need to read up on big data and how it is used.

Your argument keeps assuming that every viewer will buy. This is not always the case! Have you bought every car/house you viewed? Should you have to hand this data over every time you want to buy a house/car/apple? Why do you think the laws are there in the first place?

ec18 · 17-06-2021 10:33am

Dav010 wrote: »

I’m not sure that your understanding of the law guarantees the outcome of a DP investigation. I would hope that the professionals Savills pay to advise on compliance know more than you and I about data protection.

Irrespective of the legality, the fact is that this is the criteria being used to sieve through an over subscribed launch. Don’t give the info, move on, but a lot of people will. There are reports this morning that properties are rising €500 per week, so I suppose you have to help yourself or stay renting.

In relation to Savills knowing what you can afford, is this useful? The next development they advertise, there will be hundreds or thousands of applicants, after the price has been set, do you think they are going to go looking for your application from a year ago? The paranoia is staggering.

Can't really get beyond the bolded part.

You are correct that the outcome of the DPC investigation is not guaranteed. If the 'professionals' rubber stamped that request than they need to get new advisors.

FromADistance · 17-06-2021 10:53am

Dav010 wrote: »

I’m not sure that your understanding of the law guarantees the outcome of a DP investigation. I would hope that the professionals Savills pay to advise on compliance know more than you and I about data protection.

Irrespective of the legality, the fact is that this is the criteria being used to sieve through an over subscribed launch. Don’t give the info, move on, but a lot of people will. There are reports this morning that properties are rising €500 per week, so I suppose you have to help yourself or stay renting.

In relation to Savills knowing what you can afford, is this useful? The next development they advertise, there will be hundreds or thousands of applicants, after the price has been set, do you think they are going to go looking for your application from a year ago? The paranoia is staggering.

The fact that you continue to defend this practice is completely and utterly astounding. But you have previous form in fairness. You're practically a cheerleader for estate agents.

javaboy · 17-06-2021 11:04am

Dav010 wrote: »

In relation to Savills knowing what you can afford, is this useful? The next development they advertise, there will be hundreds or thousands of applicants, after the price has been set, do you think they are going to go looking for your application from a year ago? The paranoia is staggering.

lol where do you think prices come from? Hint: they're not based on the cost of land, labour, and materials.

It's not paranoia at all. This information is a goldmine. Have a look on the other threads here about the detail people go into when analysing trends on the PPR, Daft reports, constructing detailed spreadsheets on price movements in their area etc. People on all sides of the property market are trying to glean whatever little hints they can about where prices are going next. You've got people agonising over bidding strategies and so on.

Assuming someone in Savills have even the tiniest amount of tech savvy, they can lump this data on a spreadsheet, order the buying capacity in descending order and set the price accordingly. They're not going to have to "go looking for your application from a year ago".

I'm not saying they will. Maybe they'll purge the data immediately. Maybe they won't abuse the knowledge they get but misusing this data would be baby stuff for someone with rudimentary knowledge of Excel.

Irrespective of the legality, the fact is that this is the criteria being used to sieve through an over subscribed launch. Don’t give the info, move on, but a lot of people will. There are reports this morning that properties are rising €500 per week, so I suppose you have to help yourself or stay renting.

You can apply the exact same logic to those dodgy landlords who offer discounts in exchange for "personal" favours.

EA Requesting an Inappropriate Level of Information

Comments