Just an observation...
I know from on here and else where there are some good estate agents aound, but some EA's seem to have a real thing against first time buyers & buyers in general?
Its understandable that a vendor tries to sell for as much as possible, but if a buyer has a morgage in principle, then why does an estate agent need to do checks of their own?

Well, this is a difficult one.

The EA should check the ability of the buyer to proceed with the purchase, as a seller you would want to know that the person viewing your house can actually afford it. If they can't, then no point showing them around.

If the FTB has a letter from a mortgage company saying they can afford it, no problem. A FTB can easily ask their mortgage lender for a certificate or some proof that they can borrow £xxx amount. However, some FTB will not have a decision in principle, they will have just looked on an internet site, or trusted the word of a guy in the pub that they can get a mortgage easily.

A 2nd time buyer is asked their position too. The EA will want to know what you are selling and how much for. The EA can then check with your EA if this is true. I was unable to put an offer in on a house I really wanted until my EA was able to confirm I had sold my place.

This still does not stop people having offers accepted who it then turns out cannot afford it. But it helps.

The part that is a bit devious of the EA is when the FTB or 2nd time buyer has a mortgage in principle, but the EA still insists the buyer sees the EA's Mortgage Advisor. This is just a sales technique.

I always do my bit before I go looking. I always get my Bank to approve a mortgage in principle, and I am then well armed for the inevitable questioning from the EA. Even then the EA can be quite insistant, until I tell them what deal I am porting and they soon back off.

I can see where some EAs are coming from. The actions of the few lead to stringent checks and general wariness towards everyone. The problems have stemmed from this willingness to lend 4/5 times salaries for mortgages, which in principle is fine. Then the buyer starts to think about what the outgoings are going to be each month and realises he just can't do it. That reflects back on the EA for introducing viewers/buyers who then drop out when they should have known their financial situation from the start.

When I was looking at houses I knew what I'd be able to afford but there didn't need to be anything in writing to view properties. We've also all heard of the people who view properties as a hobby - they still manage to do it so there is probably a bit of fabrication going on there on the part of these viewers.

The 3x salary was the standard for a reason. Because it was generally understood all round that you could afford the mortgage and the other expenses on that figure.

I can understand why Estate Agents need to check the viability of buyers as I know Friend's of mine who have twice 'bought' a house only to pull out just before exchange because they didn't actually have the money for the deposit!

What I don't agree with, however, is not putting an offer forward to the vendor until they have this proof (I believe that there was a thread about this). I thought that an EA was legally obliged to put an offer forward.

When I bought my house they out my offer forward and it was all agreed but they wouldn't send out confirmation or stop marketing the house until we proved that we had finances in place. This was no problem and we had done it within two hours/

I've had this happen to me as a seller too. I lost hundreds of pounds in fees when a buyer strang me along for 6 weeks before pulling out because she couldn't actually get a mortgage. I was very careful the second time to make sure my estate agent checked and double checked that the buyer was genuine.

A competent EA will check the viability of a seller. All they need is written confirmation the mortgage is agreed in principle and the deposit has been secured.

Problems arise when EAs make forwarding a buyer's offer conditional on the buyer speaking to their mortgage advisor and/or conditional on teh buyer using a service provided by the EA:

When such a condition is imposed the EA hopes to achieve two things:
1) Selling unwanted and unneeded financial products to buyers, and/or;
2) Finding out all they can about the buyer's financial circumstances to use as leverage in subsequent negotiations

If I could have a moment to make one thing absolutely clear. By law an Estate Agent is obliged to pass on any offer, 'unless the offer is an amount or type which the client has specifically instructed you, in writing, not to pass on'. In addition, the Estate Agent's Code of Practice makes it clear failing to tell a vendor of an offer because the seller has refused to use a service offered or provided by the EA will be a breach of the code.

http://www.oea.co.uk/

Sorry -link isn't very good.

Click on 'Code of Practice' and then on 'offers'

Is that the self regulatory, self funded Estate Agents code of Practise, that is optional to join?

Its intereseting to read all the replies,
Personally i think that anyone serious about buying would have a mortgage in principle already in place..at a rate they are comfortable with and proof of this should be good enough.

It seems that some EA's wouldn't consider putting an offer forward unless they do their own financial checks to assertain how much a buyer is worth. And in some cases abuse this information to hold out for a better offer.
But not everyone wants to borrow 4 or 5 times their salary.

I wouldn't let ANY estate agent do a check on me. They are unqualified and unregulated.

If they didn't put through an offer - or hesitated - I would simply put a note through the house door explaining my offer to the vendors direct.

quote:

Originally posted by bridgette:
I wouldn't let ANY estate agent do a check on me. They are unqualified and unregulated.

If they didn't put through an offer - or hesitated - I would simply put a note through the house door explaining my offer to the vendors direct.

I wouldnt either, why would they need to unless
they wanted to use that information for dubious reasons.