EA asking for proof of funds

give the EA a copy of the letter, but redact the amount. When the agent asks for that amount tell them that you are not disclosing it as they are employed by the vendor and not you, and as such are not acting in your interests (and that telling them your budget means they will know exactly the max of how much you can pay). All they need to know is that you have approval from your financial institution for a mortgage.

if your bid is accepted tell them you can advise them the redacted figure (if they really push you) showing you have proof of the funds required.

I'm guessing the EA wants to milk you for every last penny. If they know how much you can borrow then I reckon you'll see some phantom bids occur pushing you towards your approved amount (plus deposit).

daheff wrote: »

give the EA a copy of the letter, but redact the amount. When the agent asks for that amount tell them that you are not disclosing it as they are employed by the vendor and not you, and as such are not acting in your interests (and that telling them your budget means they will know exactly the max of how much you can pay). All they need to know is that you have approval from your financial institution for a mortgage.

if your bid is accepted tell them you can advise them the redacted figure (if they really push you) showing you have proof of the funds required.

I'm guessing the EA wants to milk you for every last penny. If they know how much you can borrow then I reckon you'll see some phantom bids occur pushing you towards your approved amount (plus deposit).

I presume the point is that the EA wants to know the OP has approval of a sufficient amount to bid on the property. If a house is selling for a million, having approval for €100k is pretty useless

Get your bank or solicitor to write a letter stating you are approved for the amount bit. Never show an EA your approval in principle / full approval documents; they will use this to get every last cent of it out of you.

Sam the Sham wrote: »

As if potential buyers are the only "messers."

My response: I'll give you proof of financing when you give me proof that: 1) the house is as advertised in all of its particulars; 2) the house will definitely be sold and not pulled off the market after you've discovered what the market for it is.

Nah. Don't pick a fight with them. It sounds great in theory but it almost never works.

If they want proof of finance, give them a redacted letter or ask your solicitor/broker to confirm it.
It's not a completely unreasonable request.

The_Conductor wrote: »

Any reputable estate agent these days is seeking proof of funds- before they will convey a bid to a seller. In some parts- up to 75% of sales are falling through- principally because prospective purchasers are unable to access the funds they imagine they have access to- when they place their bids.

A proof of funds- is becoming a normal part of the bidding process- and is normally a standard letter from the purchaser's solicitor stating that Mr. X has access to sufficient funds to support the bid (Y) that they have made on the property in question.

The local solicitor here- charges 50 Euro for the first such letter to clients- and 10 for subsequent letters (i.e. they will supply a chain of letters to a prospective purchaser after each bid- or for subsequent properties- if the first property they are bidding on gets too rich for their blood). The higher initial one- is because inevitably it involves at least one meeting and chasing paperwork- though 50 Euro is itself only a token gesture- and the subsequent 10 Euro per letter- is a formality.

I don't know if I really believe that principally because it's coming from the lips of EA's. We pulled out of a deal because of asbestos contamination but the EA told future viewers that it was our finance.

Sam the Sham wrote: »

That's fine. Now how do we weed out time waster vendors?



It's the asymmetry of information that's galling from a buyer's perspective. Not only is the buyer an amateur negotiator going up against professionals, there is absolutely no sanction on the EA for lying, inventing phantom bidders, etc. Meanwhile the buyer has to put everything on the table.

We really ought to move to a U.S.-style system where buyers also have agents.

I also think that a letter directly to the vendor (assuming they still live in the house) saying "I was going to bid X on your house until your overzealous estate agent insisted that I reveal my limit to him. That cost you my bid" might help curtail this practice.

You're not putting everything on the table. Do you really want to be bidding against "real" buyers who haven't even bothered getting proper mortgage approval? You could have approval for €50 but just redact it and the EA won't know the difference.

We've been there and luckily we didn't get it because they bid us up by tens of thousands of euro and then held up the sale for 7 months until a relation of theirs kindly departed this mortal coil to dig them out of the fix they were in. They simply went onto an online calculator and worked out their budget from that!!!

gaius c wrote: »

You're not putting everything on the table. Do you really want to be bidding against "real" buyers who haven't even bothered getting proper mortgage approval?

That's a good point. Obviously, I'd like more transparency all around.

But part of the problem is that the only professional involved in the selling/purchase is a single estate agent who works for the vendor. So to have that same person adjudicating the finances of various bidders is a clear conflict of interest.

I have no problem with having a broker/bank issue a statement saying that I have access to the amount I bid. I think that should be standard procedure. But I've had estate agents who were not satisfied with that and refused to proceed unless I sent them my AIP with all amounts revealed. I refused.

davo10 wrote: »

It is just as frustrating for the vendor when a sale falls through due to lack of funds. As a buyer, you should recognise that the final price you pay may have been pushed up in part by other buyers who bid even though they may not be in a position to actually buy.

In short: vendors love "buyers" who don't have the funds when they push up the price for others who do have the funds. However, they don't love them quite as much when they actually prevail in the bidding war. They'd like to stop the latter but there's no sign that they'd also like to stop the former.

As a buyer I have been used in just that way by an EA: they had two cash buyers and knew I would require a mortgage. They left me in the process just long enough to push the other two. When one of them dropped out, they informed me that the vendor would be selling to the remaining cash buyer no matter what I bid. Do you think that that behaviour qualifies as "time wasting"?

Meanwhile, bidders are often bidding on a property that they know nothing about beyond the fact that the estate agent has declared it to be "stunning" and "in excellent condition throughout." EAs are not required to back up even the latter claim. And when the sale falls through as a result of a bad survey (for which the now-former buyer will be out €400-500), the EA can continue to make the claim when they re-advertise the property (and lie to all and sundry about why the previous sale fell through: "the buyer had trouble raising the money"). But that, see, isn't considered a problem in this country apparently. No, the only problem is people bidding without the resources to back up their bids.

Again, I have no problem with supplying a letter saying I can pay what I've bid. I have a problem with divulging the exact amount to my adversary in this endeavour.

Writing to the vendor is a no no, they won't take any heed and you will be marked as a time waster by the EA for future bids.

I'm not so sure. If I were selling and I learned that my overzealous EA was scaring away legitimate bidders in the name of getting rid of "time wasters", I'd probably get a new EA.

Incidentally, you have to pay the agents acting for you in the U.S. I thinks it's 3-4%, This adds to the cost of buying your property

How much do you think the total lack of regulation of EAs here adds to the cost of buying a property?

In the US, they have lemon laws where there is legal sanction for a seller who lies about a known defect in a car. Here, EAs can lie endlessly about houses with impunity.

davo10 wrote: »

Do you know why house purchases are not covered by the Sale of Goods and Services Act? It's because as a buyer, you are recommended to carry out your own survey and analysis of the building before you buy. So irrespective of what condition the vendor claims the property is in, you have the opportunity to check for yourself.

Yes, except it costs €400-500 to avail oneself of that "opportunity." Meanwhile, the seller has to provide a BER cert despite the fact that I also have the "opportunity" to check that for myself. But buyers are on their own when it comes to surveys. Having recently sprung for two of them on houses that were not anywhere close to the advertised condition (although artfully concealed), I think this is unfair. I just spent the guts of €1,000 for knowledge that the seller should simply be obliged to provide me. Not only that but:

1) the EA can continue to lie about the property even though he knows (having seen the survey) that it is a lie;
2) the next buyer will also have to pay €400-500 to take advantage of the "opportunity."

The only people whose interests this "system" serves are the Estate Agents and the Surveyors.

Anyway, I wonder how much it cost the IAVI to get TDs to write in that exemption?

Vendors do not like time wasters any more than buyers do.

Indeed. Precisely my point. But let's not pretend that buyers are the only time wasters.

davo10 wrote: »

Are you saying that the vendor should pay for the survey? What buyer in their right mind would accept a survey done by someone acting on the seller's behalf.

Why do we accept the BER?

Look, there are ways of making sure that they don't monkey with the survey (e.g., legal consequences if the survey turns out to have false information), but they require regulation, which is what I'm calling for.

davo10 wrote: »

Because BER testing has defined parameters, the condition of a house can be subjective and two surveyors can give very different opinions. Simples.

You can't be serious. I've seen BERs of C1 that, when I paid for my own BER on the property, turned out to be G.

Anything can be faked. But if there are legal consequences for fakery, that tends to make it less likely.

Sam the Sham wrote: »

1) the EA can continue to lie about the property even though he knows (having seen the survey) that it is a lie;

Well should you have paid for a survey that contradicts what they are advertising, I'd suggest you contact the ASAI and advise them that the ad is not telling the truth. Also I'd contact the website where the advert is placed and let them also know.

Victor wrote: »

And any account numbers, etc.

Nope...would not provide account numbers to vendors. They dont need it and it provides no value to them.

The EA works for the vendor and has interest in getting the most possible for the house. Revealing exactly how much you can go up to in this situation is insane. Both the buyer and the vendor risk time wasters and it's the nature of the business, they have to just live with it.

Also I'd love to see the source that says 75% of sale agreed situations are falling through because of bidders without enough funds for what they bid. It sounds made up.

Clearlier wrote: »

It's a common mistake but EA's are more interested in getting a sale than the highest price. It's not really in their interest to prolong the process to get an exta couple of thousand as they're only seeing 1 - 2% of that. That's not to say that they don't look for the highest price just that they're more interested in getting a sale.

Edit: Obviously it would be stupid to show the EA the max that you can go to though.

No, it's not a mistake. Their interest is dictated to by their client.
The EA works for the vendor, and while for the EA as a business it's better getting a quick sale for a bit less than a long one for a bit more as they are usually dealing with dozens of different houses. But it is not their decision. It is the vendors. It depends on the vendors situation but as it's their money and it's a lot of money they will quite often be willing to let it go on a lot longer, despite what is best for the EA.
Giving the EA your max bid is giving the vendor your max bid and I would refuse outright.

Clearlier wrote: »

We don't fundamentally disagree here.

Human interest being what it is though it can be useful to remember that there is a slight disconnect beween what's best for the EA and for the vendor. There doesn't have to be but sometimes there is.

It's just a minor point and as I said already it doesn't imply that you should show what your maximum bid is (unless your bid is your maximum perhaps).

Agreed. And of course if your bid is your max it might even encourage the vendor to take it and close. They would know there is no point pushing you for more.

It just feels very much like leaving yourself exposed. If you lost out on this bid but were looking at other houses in the same area, it's entirely possible you get the same EA.

Rew wrote: »

Thats what he was Victor saying:

Apologies, I misunderstood Victors post. I thought he meant give them the account numbers.