Spotted on Property Tribes – the subject is not new, but all the same it’s always disappointing to see it going on.
Under the heading, “Can an estate force me to use their mortgage broker”, someone interested in putting in an offer on a buy-to-let property complains that the agent “is refusing to put forward my offer unless I use their in-house mortgage adviser”.
The person says the agent also wants to charge him £250 just to obtain an approval in principle, even though he already has one from another broker.
The estate agent in question is part of a very large group.
The person adds: “I do object to paying the first £250 when the estate agent won’t even give me a clue how my offer compares to others he has undoubtedly received.
“I suspect the estate agent is just using this highly desirable property to collect as many £250 fees as possible.”
Solicitor David Smith was quick to point out that an estate agent cannot force someone to use their mortgage broker and that by law, has a duty to put all offers forward.
And another poster points out that such practice is against TPO’s code of conduct.
It’s on Property Tribes here
Comments (19)
I still don’t think current legislation goes far enough with this practice. It happens all the time. In an ideal world estate agents shouldn’t be able to push financial services.
I appreciate that this is not a widely held industry view, but I think, in many cases, the seller is compromised by their agent who wants/needs to sell financial services.
An agents job is primarily a marketing job followed by a professional negotiation to obtain the best price.
All too often I hear from buyers that they are told by agents that they have to use their mortgage guy if they want to buy a property…….and that does compromise the seller, however you look at it.
Is the estate agents job not to find them the best buyer?
I think agents should where possible check the standing of the purchaser but they should not refuse to put an offer forward.
Hi smile please…
Good news! You actually don’t have to “think” about this – Legislation makes it pretty clear for you (and any Agent who tries to do it any other way…) that ANY offer must be conveyed to the vendor promptly by the Agent EXCEPT in cases where the Vendor has specifically instructed the Agent not to do so.
But of course you knew that – I was making the point more for “certain others” that appear to have articles written about them… ;o)
Smile – totally agree. But an agent checking with the buyers own broker (assuming they are qualified) against having to check with their own in – house broker has never sat well with me.
I can see your point, we do however check all offers in house even if they have an AIP – We do not necessarily AIP them again but we want to make sure what they are telling us is as truthful as possible, i will also be a liar if i did not say we also use this as an opportunity to sell to them but by no means is it heavy handed.
Surely an opportunity for some entrepreneurial solicitor here……? Looks to me as if a few punters have been mis-sold mortgage advice?
Obviously this is bad practice and not compliant.
However i am guess as ElTel said its a certain Company.
You must feel sorry for the neg in this, the pressure they must be under for “First appointments” and the manager under the pressure to make sure every offer is checked by an adviser, And the pressure on the mortgage adviser to take the £250 and AIP them.
I don’t blame the staff they probably do not want to do it, its the pressure they are under from the company. They wonder why they have high turnover of staff and not dominant in more towns, here is a prime example as of why.
Given this situation I would by pass the agent, do a land registry search and make a deal directly with the owner. An agent is under a duty to put forward all offers and if they participate in sharp practice then they should not be surprised if someone screws them.
Once again the industry dragged into the mud because of sharp practice. It’s sad that the actions of a few rotten apples affect so many good eggs.
As part of a large Corporate, in our office we request all buyers to visit the office, having placed an offer, to qualify the offer so it can be passed to the vendor in the knowledge the potential purchaser is able to actually buy.
This is not the same as buyers being ‘forced’ to use mortgage services. No-one can conditionally sell. But due diligence on the behalf of our vendors is basic estate agency and reduces fall through so, when offers are placed, accepted and then 2 weeks down the line the buyer advises they can’t get a mortgage.
you know it happens!
Yes it happens. As an independent I have two cases where buyers are using corporate estate agents mortgage advisors who, despite an appropriate AIP have NINE WEEKS down the line been told they cannot get a sufficient mortgage to purchase.
Irrespective of your definition of ‘forced’ as opposed to ‘sold to’ please don’t put your advisors on a pedestal that using them is the sure and certain way to get the end result for your vendor. It isn’t.
Hi, JAM01.
What you say above is all well and good – but it is the “what if…?” that is missing in order to establish whether your procedure is ‘fair’ or not.
Such as:
What if the buyer refuses to comply?
What if the buyer is absent and genuinely cannot comply?
What if the buyer produces independent evidence of their prodeedability?
What if an applicant is unable to comply with your procedure for, say, two weeks?
What does your branch (I wouldn’t ask you to speak for the whole company…) do then in relation to these valid, notifiable offers that you cannot ‘qualify’ face-to-face?
JAM01 – you there?
Surely it doesn’t take this long to answer a simple question – even if there are multiple scenarios that the one answer really ought to be…?
Well… I for one – and I am certain I speak for an awful lot of people in the industry – would LOVE the person who ‘Dislikes’ the two posts above to grow a pair and actually state WHY they disagree with what I have posted.
Go on – run the gauntlet…
Too many ‘keyboard warriors’
Peebee
we don’t all have all day to post on social media sites. I post when I can and reply when I can. We can’t all keep to you posting time requirements my friend. As the main lister for our corporate office, and being the #1 branch out of 49 for listings, you can imagine I am busy.
i would normally reply to your questions but based on the really poor attitude on your part, I won’t bother.
and no, it wasn’t me who disliked you posts! 🙂
JAM01
Sorry I haven’t responded before now. This thread has slipped into the depths of the archive (which is why I had hoped you would have responded earlier…) and I only clicked on it out of interest in the subject.
To be blunt, I’m disappointed on a number of levels with your response.
Firstly, you’ve previously found plenty of time to post here. We are all busy – I am pleased to hear you are also – but your OP begged the question I posted to you.
Secondly – I asked one question which I would respectfully suggest did NOT indicate “poor attitude” in the slightest – which you took four days to respond to …or not respond to, as is the situation.
IF I ‘huffed’ you with my second post, then I’m sorry. But that being the case I would respectfully suggest you should consider altering the settings on your Sensitivity Alarm, Sir – it’s on a hairtrigger!
Thirdly – NOWHERE in the last post did I suggest or imply that it was you who ‘Disliked’ my posts. I don’t think that’s your style.
I only hope that others reading this dialogue don’t come to the conclusion that your reluctance to answer my original question is for reasons other than that given.
Oh – and for the sake of transparency – that ‘Dislike’ isn’t from me, either! Nor were any of those for your initial post, for that matter.
I wonder if the agent has a wide selection of offices across the country?
I wonder whether the agent(s) in question is a corporate?