Jump to content

re: residential sales negotiator required


Haart

Recommended Posts

Negotiator - residential sales


haart estate agents are a well-established local business with the backing of a major national company. Our Dulwich office is looking for a new person to join its sales team, so that we can continue to serve the busy local property market.


As a sales negotiator for haart you?ll need to be responsive, be able to treat people as individuals, and have the capacity to act as an advisor - not just an agent.


We enjoy a healthy relationship with the neighbourhood, and are looking for a person not only with high selling skills, but also with good local knowledge. As a member of the sales team your credentials will include an understanding of local schools, amenities and transport links into Central London.


Our office is on Lordship Lane. We're a major player in the local property market, and sell property primarily in SE22, SE15, SE23, SE21 and SE4. Living in the area is likely to be an advantage, as is any experience in property marketing. You?ll need a clean driver?s licence, and should be well-spoken and presentable. Training and company car will be given to the successful person.


Interested candidates should in the first instance forward their CVs to [email protected] or if you're passing then please drop your CV in to us at haart, 103-105 Lordship Lane, London SE22 8HU


Many thanks

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Latest Discussions

    • Yes and I heard the other day that there is a higher conviction rate with trials heard by only a judge, vs juries, which makes sense when you think about it.  Also - call me cynical - I can't help but think that this justice reform story was thrown out to overshadow the Reeves / OBR / Budget story.  But I do agree with scrapping juries for fraud cases. 
    • judges are, by definition, a much narrower strata of society. The temptation to "rattle through" numbers, regardless of right, wrong or justice is fundamentally changed If we trust judges that much, why have we ever bothered with juries in the first place? (that's a rhetorical question btw - there is no sane answer which goes along the lines of "good point, judges only FTW"
    • Ah yes, of course, I'd forgotten that the cases will be heard by judges and not Mags. But how does losing juries mean less work for barristers, though? Surely all the other problems (no courtrooms, loos, witnesses etc etc) that stop cases going to trial, or slow trials down - will still exist? Then they'll still be billing the same? 
    • It's not magistrates that are needed, it's judges and they will rattle through these cases whether the loos are working or not. Barristers get a brief fee and a day rate. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...