Jump to content

Recommended Posts

My colleague has been house hunting for the perfect place for her and her family for around 18 months. During that time they have accepted offers on their own place 3 times having put the house back on the market. In the first two cases the buyers were prepared to wait until my colleague had her perfect house only to find their survey's had been a waste of money.


This seems wrong to me as it's unfair to the potential buyer. I've never actually sold a place in my life so it's easy for me to think my colleague is just being greedy. From the little I know this scenario would not happen in Scotland due to different regulations/laws in place. Why not here?

I think in Scotland if you want to buy a house you just put your best bid in, and everyone that does so has to have their own survey/valuation first (it is binding bid)- so say 5 people want a house- 5 surveys and only one is used, and 4 are wasted of money. That's why everyone likes chain free sales here.
The Scottish system is very much a sellers market. The property tends to be undervalued like an auction, with the successful sealed bid often way over the advertised 'valuation'. The legally binding bid does cut out gazumping/gazundering though, but as has already been pointed out, the buyers have to fork out up-front costs for surveys regardless of whether their bid is successful or not. I saw an episode of Location x 3 recently where they were in Edinburgh, and P&K put in bids over the phone as per their standard programme format, which isn't the Scottish way, so not sure what was going on then, perhaps agreed beforehand for TV 'entertainment' purposes...
If you are selling for a commission of say 1%, and the owner wants another ?50k for example, then the commission isn't that much more for the agent, so not really worth it for them, but of course it is for the owners. It's really going to be the owner driving the increase.

When prices are rising very fast, the sellers looking to buy (your colleague Alan Medic) can find themselves priced out of the market during the course of their search. So while they might want to honour the original price agreed with their buyers, they could then find that they simply don't have the money they need for their next purchase. It's a reason for gazumping and no, to the vast majority of estate agents the loss of that sale is simply not worth it in terms of the extra ?50 or whatever.


So in a rising market, beware of the seller who does not have their onward move sorted. If you have a choice of two properties, always favour the one at the end of a chain if you possibly can.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • But a larger number, in a more hotly contested election, didn't. It is an anomaly that Starmer won a landslide in seats with a turnout for Labour which would have shamed Labour leaders in all the 21st and much of the post war 20th century.
    • I was not suggesting anything else!   I'm not sure how you interpret what I said  as "irrelevant"? I was responding to a post saying that Corbyn was "unelectable". My point was that a  large number  of the electorate  voted for him!
    • that's exactly what happened - Brickhouse were forced to close due to rent hike and then Gail's didn't move in until covid restrictions lifted and normality resumed. Gail's would have opened much sooner as they were lined up and able to offer the landlord much higher rents. Brickhouse was a local favourite
    • The Brickhouse closed just before Covid December 2019. Nothing to do with Gails muscling in as they didn't move into till December 2022. Stop trying to fit a false narrative into a story
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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