Which? has drawn consumers’ attention to the pros and cons of using online agents.
It says they can be cheaper and more contactable outside working hours than high street agents, but warns that online agents may not know the local area, and may not do viewings or negotiations.
Which? also warns that customers who pay up-front won’t be paying on results: “In fact, you’ll have to pay even if that company doesn’t end up selling your house.”
It says there is no straightforward yes or no as to whether vendors should use an online agent.
Its guidance also looks at agents – both online and traditional – cutting property prices.
It found that high street agents were more likely to reduce asking prices than the average online agent, and that Purplebricks reduced its asking prices the least. However, it also found that easyProperty was likely to cut asking prices.
Comments (3)
So online agents don’t reduce prices as much?
Of course they don’t, why do they need to? They’ve been paid up front so don’t give a monkeys if it doesn’t sell.
What’s more they don’t have to admit to owners that they grossly overvalued in the first place to get the instruction.
Other Which conclusions: ‘Water is wet’ and ‘Sky is blue’.
According to Rightmove Intel stats, PB has more price reductions than any other agent in my area and I would be interested to see where Which sourced their stats from.
Having read the article there is no source for their data and no definition of what they mean by “sold”. My assumption is they’re referring to “sale agreed” which, as we all know, is something very different.
Given Which like to think of themselves as the definitive guide for consumers, I think they’ve done a poor job on this and through their unclear and possibly inaccurate conclusions, they may actually be guilty of misleading consumers, the very people they’ve set out to protect.