Dodgy Real Estate Agent

[Al]

Im in the legal industry, my dad is a Real Estate Agent

1. what contract? if the offer fell through, there is no contract.

there is no vested interest

there may be a conflict of interest

2. you saying they are dodgy makes you liable in defamation if they found it

could report to Consumer Affairs

3. you may be able to but chances are the vendor has sole agency meaning you can only deal with the agent

4. get someone to negotiate on your behalf

Thanks Sarah

Must have missed this post earlier.

1/ By contract i mean the contract between the agent and the owner to sell the property. Can she break this contract on the grounds that she has proof that the agent is not looking after her best interests.

2/ I have not named the agents publicly. Even so; my mechanic was publicly defamed, on another web site, and his solicitor advised strongly not to pursuit it as it is a public forum and the opinion of one person was posted.

[DRFT31]

Well under the professional conduct regulations it states under;

Regulation 6 "Fairness & honesty" An estate agent, at all times, in the conduct of his or her profession, act fairly and honestly to the best of his or her knowledge and ability"

Therefore as the agent knew you were a potential buyer who was willing to give a offer, has shortcut the vendor buy not disclosing all offers. So under this regulation the contact between the vendor and the agent may be reclined.

[Al]

Thanks all.

Will be taking all this into account.

[Al]

Well under the professional conduct regulations it states under;

Regulation 6 "Fairness & honesty" An estate agent, at all times, in the conduct of his or her profession, act fairly and honestly to the best of his or her knowledge and ability"

Therefore as the agent knew you were a potential buyer who was willing to give a offer, has shortcut the vendor buy not disclosing all offers. So under this regulation the contact between the vendor and the agent may be reclined.

EXACTLY!

Also my phone records will show that i have contacted both agents at different times, after Saturday's "open for inspection".

[JMP 82]

chances are there would be a sole agency, restricting anyone else selling it for 2 months

depends on how long is left on the agreement - there is a space where you nominate the period the agency has exclusive rights... if it is 60 days (the norm) but it was signed 45 days ago, then of course there is only 15 days left and the vendor can move agents...

Thanks Sarah

Must have missed this post earlier.

1/ By contract i mean the contract between the agent and the owner to sell the property. Can she break this contract on the grounds that she has proof that the agent is not looking after her best interests.

2/ I have not named the agents publicly. Even so; my mechanic was publicly defamed, on another web site, and his solicitor advised strongly not to pursuit it as it is a public forum and the opinion of one person was posted.

1. She can, but it may be a long winded and drawn out process... something i must point out is that a vendor can withdraw her property from the market at any point, but she cannot use another agent during the exclusive period... so if there's 30 days left on the authority, she can pull it off the market now, but can't sign with another agency until the 30 days has elapsed... what i would do if i were the vendor is pull the property off the market (to save advertising costs) and then as soon as the exclusive period ends, she can do what i mentioned in number 4 in my first post (appoint another agent as a 'handler' for a small cost)...

2. Don't name the agents... best to deal with this stuff privately... at the end of the day, you can speak to a solicitor about the situation to see what the best way to handle it is, but the i truly believe the only way the vendor can sell the property to you in a way where the first agent can't claim comm is by appointing another agency...

[DRFT31]

Also

Regulation 16; "Communication of offers" An agent must communicate all offers to his or her principal as soon as possible.

[JMP 82]

EXACTLY!

Also my phone records will show that i have contacted both agents at different times, after Saturday's "open for inspection".

there's a number of regs the agents have breached-

6. Fairness and honesty

An agent must at all times, in the conduct of his or

her profession, act fairly and honestly and to the

best of his or her knowledge and ability.

7. Best interests of the principal

(1) An agent must not accept an engagement to act

where to do so would place his or her interest in

conflict with that of the principal.

(2) An agent must act in the best interests of his or

her principal except where it would be

unreasonable or improper to do so.

(3) An agent must not knowingly mislead or deceive

any parties involved in negotiations or a

transaction.

8. Duties and obligations

An agent must have a working knowledge of the

duties and obligations of an agent towards his or

her principal.

10. Compliance with legislation

An agent must not in the conduct of his or her

profession contravene or fail to comply with any

statute, rule or regulation in force in Victoria to

the extent that it is relevant to the conduct of his

or her profession.

11. Good estate agency practice

(1) An agent must not engage in conduct that is

contrary to good estate agency practice.

(2) An agent must exercise skill, care and diligence in

the conduct of his or her profession.

(3) An agent must not engage in conduct that is

detrimental to the reputation or interests of his or

her profession.

16. Exaggeration or concealment

An agent in the conduct of his or her profession

must not engage in any form of exaggeration or

concealment.

18. Communication of offers

An agent must communicate all offers to his or

her principal as soon as possible.

[Al]

A little off the side track:

If i make an offer on a property (not this one in particular), say $320,000, and the agent claims he had an offer for $340,000, but was rejected, can i ask to view the written offer? Just to make sure they are not BS and bumping up the price. There has been a few times that this has happened and i felt they were just BS.

The latest one; i viewed a property that was advertised for $330k-$350k, after my inspection i thought "no way the property is worth that much", so i offered a low first offer of $315. He then stated that he had already been offered $340k, which i felt it was BS, because he never indicated the house was "under offer" and the $340k "offers" falls in the middle of the asking price.

[JDMPWR]

VACC??=Victoria automotive chamber of commerce :S

victorian administrative consumer council or civil council? something like that.. learnt it back in highschool now i forgot haha

[Rowdyr32]

Most agents are scum!

I got told this by a real estate agent as I know I got f'd by mine. I put an offer. He couldn't contact the owner at the time and claimed he had to wait to speak to the other interested party. This was on a sat arvo. One of dads mates said they have to contact the owner with every offer asap. I called to tell him that a few hours later and he said he had contacted the owner and it had been rejected even though it was going to happen monday. I offered the asking price and he said he couldn't do it until he contacted the other interested party on monday. Then he called back 15 minutes later saying I could have it. I know he never contacted the owner with the original offer but didn't know what to do as I had paid a substantial amount more than the original offer but the house was well worth it.

One of dads mate who's an agent and also buys houses for people told me a few things to stop them ripping you off. Might help you a little.

What I have been told to do when putting in offers is when you put the offer in put it in as a one off offer and if it is rejected by the owner the offer is withdrawn. This means they cannot use you as a bartering tool with other parties and mess you around. Don't act to keen on it. If they call get them to put the phone on speaker while your there at the desk with them to hear the conversation with the owner. He also said as he's in the trade that if your offer is accepted go with the real estate agent straight away to get the papers signed by the owner as they are slimey and will shaft you if they get a better offer later.

Good luck Al as I hated dealing with them.

[cosmic starz]

3- well if a property sells while there is an agency appointed as acting agent, then the agent is entitled to commission - this is to prevent the situation where there is an agent's signboard on a house and a passer by knocks on the door and offers the owner 10k less than what they want as they will be saving on agent's fees... the problem lies in the fact that if you buy the house privately and the other agent finds out, regardless of whether they have breached acts or regulations, they can claim commission as they 'introduced' the property to you while they had it exclusively listed with their company - all they have to do is show a record of your inspection on the saturday (which they no doubt have) and they get their cash... NB: it doesn't matter if you buy it privately 12 months down the track after the exclusive agreement between vendor and agent is ended, if you buy it privately, they can claim commission...

4- here's the good bit... if you want to get around this as cheaply and sneakily as possible this is what i would do... make a private agreement with the owner (if you can) on a purchase price... once the exclusive authority period is over with the current agent, you get the vendor to list the property with another agency but she tells them this... "i want to list my property with your agency, however i have a buyer who i have made a private deal with and i want you act as the 'handler' of the transaction. for this i will pay you $1000 commission (which is alot cheaper than she'd be paying the first agent) and all you have to do is write up the contracts and i and the purchaser signs off on them"... this way the first agent can't claim commission as the second agent had exclusive authority over the property when it was sold ie. they have no leg to stand on...

_________________

3 is about right

4 you really think so? - read on

Fact - agent introduced you to the property

Fact - std sales agreement will have provision that agent will be entitled to commission if introduced person to property, there is no deadline on this.

Fact - you/the agent/the vendor can each allege anything - courts tribunals and agencies work on facts not assertions or hearsay.

Conclusion :Your dreaming if you believe there is any way of now buying "privately" and seller avoiding commission to the relevant agent - the seller would have to be stupid to not be aware they (not you) are certain to be sued for commission if they sell to you by any method - (but we can presume they will use a solicitor who will advise them properly ).

And now I have a question: is it not the case that trying to screw an agent over a commission is no less dodgy than the alleged wrong conduct of the agent that is being complained about - - lol

I also don't understand why if its all legit (and it may be fully legit) why doesn't the seller just take the offer they have now discovered is in play sell at that price and and just pay commission so everyone is happy? Can we have an Epilogue pls?

[Al]

And now I have a question: is it not the case that trying to screw an agent over a commission is no less dodgy than the alleged wrong conduct of the agent that is being complained about - - lol

NO!!

If the agent was honest and did his job i would never consider doing this. The fact that the agent stands to make $7k+ from selling this house, but is preventing genuine bids being made so that he could keep the sale of the property low, for his own gains, is not right.

If law states he needs to get commission then so be it. But then i'll help the owner use the laws to get his agency fined and have him pay the penalty for his deception. I'm sure i am not the only one being prevented from making an offer, so all it would take is for the owner to legally obtain a copy of the "visitors list" and then the solicitors to contact each person and inquire if they had been interested in making an offer.

My actual experiences and phone records are not "hearsay".

Why should the seller take an offer that is clearly under market value????

I am actually willing to pay asking price, as i think it's very reasonable, so why should she accept anything under that?

The plot thickens:

Today there was a "open for inspection" for this property. I was considering taking my old man to view the property, so i called the agency to confirm the times (like i do every Saturday morning) and was told it was cancelled. Rang the owner and she stated she had not cancelled the open day. She then stated that her agent came to the property, put up the flag and sign, sat in his car for a few minutes, then removed the signs and drove off; without knocking on her door. A few minutes later she got a call from the agency stating that the "open for inspection" needs to be cancelled, as her agent is "sick"...................................i call BS!!

[JMP 82]

A little off the side track:

If i make an offer on a property (not this one in particular), say $320,000, and the agent claims he had an offer for $340,000, but was rejected, can i ask to view the written offer? Just to make sure they are not BS and bumping up the price. There has been a few times that this has happened and i felt they were just BS.

The latest one; i viewed a property that was advertised for $330k-$350k, after my inspection i thought "no way the property is worth that much", so i offered a low first offer of $315. He then stated that he had already been offered $340k, which i felt it was BS, because he never indicated the house was "under offer" and the $340k "offers" falls in the middle of the asking price.

i think the privacy act would restrict the agent actually showing a contract to a party that is not involved... however, in saying that, i don't think the agent would tell you there was a higher offer rejected unless there actually was... two reasons:

1- it may deter you from buying the house and losing you to another ppty or even agency

2- the agent (which does happen) can use the low offer to condition the vendor into thinking the house is only worth that much money... ie. if he takes 3 offers to the owner between 315k and 320k, then the owner will probably take an offer around the 325k mark... if he doesn't take any offers, then the owner will still be looking for the 350k...

if an offer is made and rejected, the property is no longer under offer - as soon as an offer is rejected, the offer becomes void, so the owner can't come back two weeks later and say "i'll take that offer that came in two weeks ago for $x"... if it was not rejected then i don't think there are any rules stating that an agent must publicly advertise if a property is under offer... bit of a grey area but it can be both beneficial and detrimental to state this... it may deter a buyer from putting in an offer because they may feel they are 'wasting their time', but it could also push a buyer to come in at their top price so they don't miss out on the home...

Most agents are scum! << that's not very nice, but it's kind of true sadly

I got told this by a real estate agent as I know I got f'd by mine. I put an offer. He couldn't contact the owner at the time and claimed he had to wait to speak to the other interested party. This was on a sat arvo. One of dads mates said they have to contact the owner with every offer asap. I called to tell him that a few hours later and he said he had contacted the owner and it had been rejected even though it was going to happen monday. I offered the asking price and he said he couldn't do it until he contacted the other interested party on monday. Then he called back 15 minutes later saying I could have it. I know he never contacted the owner with the original offer but didn't know what to do as I had paid a substantial amount more than the original offer but the house was well worth it.

One of dads mate who's an agent and also buys houses for people told me a few things to stop them ripping you off. Might help you a little.

What I have been told to do when putting in offers is when you put the offer in put it in as a one off offer and if it is rejected by the owner the offer is withdrawn. This means they cannot use you as a bartering tool with other parties and mess you around. Don't act to keen on it. If they call get them to put the phone on speaker while your there at the desk with them to hear the conversation with the owner. He also said as he's in the trade that if your offer is accepted go with the real estate agent straight away to get the papers signed by the owner as they are slimey and will shaft you if they get a better offer later.

Good luck Al as I hated dealing with them.

re your story: you have to remember that the agent is working for the seller, not the buyer... if an agent thinks he can get a better offer from another party, then they more than likely will hold onto an offer until he knows it's the best he can get at that time... the way you can do this and work within the law is simple - take the offer to the owner and tell them "this offer just came in but i have another interested party and i think we should wait and see what level they come in at"... no doubt if you go back to the buyer and say "he has rejected your offer, but there is a chance he may take the same price or only a couple of hundred dollars more if nothing better comes in in the next couple of days"... you hold onto your buyer and also buy time to see what the other party wants to put to the owner...

the agent every time will refuse to put the owner on speaker when discussing an offer with them... it's also against the privacy act to allow a prospective purchaser to listen in on a conversation with a vendor because they may divulge personal information that should be kept within the vendor/agent relationship... there is a provision on a contract where if you put in an offer, there is a deadline... if nothing is written, it's 3 days, however the purchaser has every right to make it 1 day or 7 days or whatever they want... this can put pressure on an owner to make a decision and can be worth doing as a buyer...

3- well if a property sells while there is an agency appointed as acting agent, then the agent is entitled to commission - this is to prevent the situation where there is an agent's signboard on a house and a passer by knocks on the door and offers the owner 10k less than what they want as they will be saving on agent's fees... the problem lies in the fact that if you buy the house privately and the other agent finds out, regardless of whether they have breached acts or regulations, they can claim commission as they 'introduced' the property to you while they had it exclusively listed with their company - all they have to do is show a record of your inspection on the saturday (which they no doubt have) and they get their cash... NB: it doesn't matter if you buy it privately 12 months down the track after the exclusive agreement between vendor and agent is ended, if you buy it privately, they can claim commission...

4- here's the good bit... if you want to get around this as cheaply and sneakily as possible this is what i would do... make a private agreement with the owner (if you can) on a purchase price... once the exclusive authority period is over with the current agent, you get the vendor to list the property with another agency but she tells them this... "i want to list my property with your agency, however i have a buyer who i have made a private deal with and i want you act as the 'handler' of the transaction. for this i will pay you $1000 commission (which is alot cheaper than she'd be paying the first agent) and all you have to do is write up the contracts and i and the purchaser signs off on them"... this way the first agent can't claim commission as the second agent had exclusive authority over the property when it was sold ie. they have no leg to stand on...

_________________

3 is about right

4 you really think so? - read on

Fact - agent introduced you to the property

Fact - std sales agreement will have provision that agent will be entitled to commission if introduced person to property, there is no deadline on this.

Fact - you/the agent/the vendor can each allege anything - courts tribunals and agencies work on facts not assertions or hearsay.

Conclusion :Your dreaming if you believe there is any way of now buying "privately" and seller avoiding commission to the relevant agent - the seller would have to be stupid to not be aware they (not you) are certain to be sued for commission if they sell to you by any method - (but we can presume they will use a solicitor who will advise them properly ).

And now I have a question: is it not the case that trying to screw an agent over a commission is no less dodgy than the alleged wrong conduct of the agent that is being complained about - - lol

I also don't understand why if its all legit (and it may be fully legit) why doesn't the seller just take the offer they have now discovered is in play sell at that price and and just pay commission so everyone is happy? Can we have an Epilogue pls?

fact 2 - that is correct however if a vendor signs an authority with another agency after the authority with the first agent has expired, then it doesn't matter if a client who had been through the property 10 times with the first agent, they are not entitled to commission... the second agent takes full commission on the sale... therefore, your conclusion isn't right...

in answer to your question - the vendor isn't trying to 'screw over' the agent, but is avoiding paying them fees for a dodgy job... if a plumber comes and fixes a leaking tap and then a week later the leak starts again, would you consider it 'screwing over' the plumber because you want your money back?

re your final point: they vendor doesn't think the agent deserves commission as they shouldn't be paid for doing a bad job (like the plumber)... if they do pay the comm, then everyone isn't happy... plus, if Al has all but done the deal privately with the vendor, then why should the agent earn the commission? on a home worth in the early 300's, the commission would be somewhere around the $10k mark - a considerable amount to pay someone for not working in your best interests...

Edited March 14, 2009 by JMP 82

[JMP 82]

NO!!

If the agent was honest and did his job i would never consider doing this. The fact that the agent stands to make $7k+ from selling this house, but is preventing genuine bids being made so that he could keep the sale of the property low, for his own gains, is not right.

If law states he needs to get commission then so be it. But then i'll help the owner use the laws to get his agency fined and have him pay the penalty for his deception. I'm sure i am not the only one being prevented from making an offer, so all it would take is for the owner to legally obtain a copy of the "visitors list" and then the solicitors to contact each person and inquire if they had been interested in making an offer.

My actual experiences and phone records are not "hearsay".

Why should the seller take an offer that is clearly under market value????

I am actually willing to pay asking price, as i think it's very reasonable, so why should she accept anything under that?

The plot thickens:

Today there was a "open for inspection" for this property. I was considering taking my old man to view the property, so i called the agency to confirm the times (like i do every Saturday morning) and was told it was cancelled. Rang the owner and she stated she had not cancelled the open day. She then stated that her agent came to the property, put up the flag and sign, sat in his car for a few minutes, then removed the signs and drove off; without knocking on her door. A few minutes later she got a call from the agency stating that the "open for inspection" needs to be cancelled, as her agent is "sick"...................................i call BS!!

re plot thickening: that is pretty poor form... your call of BS is more than likely on the mark... btw, i assume the agent doesn't know you are speaking privately with the vendor? another thing you can do is suggest to the vendor to send a family member or friend to the agent as a fake buyer, get them to try and put an offer in on the house, and then it takes the burden off you if it does go to court or what not... a lot of my vendors send fake buyers to OFI's just to test me and see if i am actually working for their best interests... i treat every buyer like they are the ones who are going to buy the home... you can pick the tire kickers early, but as soon as someone wants a second inspection, then BANG, they are keen... i work in a family business that has tripled in size from scratch in the past 20 years... there used to be 5 agents in our suburb, and now it's just us... we are doing something right... it's a shame to see people like the guys you mentioned in the industry that tarnish our name...

Edited March 14, 2009 by JMP 82

[cosmic starz]

I also don't understand why if its all legit (and it may be fully legit) why doesn't the seller just take the offer they have now discovered is in play sell at that price and and just pay commission so everyone is happy?

________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________

come on guys , why don't you answer the above question? - the comments offered so far have been evasive and unconvincing and there is no correlation between following up a warranty issue after paying for goods/service and actually not paying for goods/service

now to reprise briefly, to list the property the vendor will have had a contract for sale prepared - it belongs to the vendor who gives a copy to the agent

if its all so sweet as claimed that buyer and vendor have agreed to price (but agent is only obstacle to sale occurring) then they still can complete the sale without necessarily involving the agent - how ?: vendor has or gets a copy of the sales contract from his/her solicitor (in case they gave the original to the agent), buyer and vendor agree on price etc and each signs sales contract (usually you would do this in your solicitors presence - they can arrange this surely ) deposit is paid by buyer to vendor, and sales process is started, and subsequently the vendor informs the agent of what has occurred and why - e.g. vendor informa agent that his (alleged) malpractice necessitated by-passing him, or gives agent whatever excuse/reason is appropriate and the issue of commission can be left to be resolved afterwards on its merits

not happy with that approach - then even easier - the vendor could have their solicitor inform the agent in writing on Monday that the vendor has accepted the buyers offer and direct the agent to process the sale within say 3 working days or else the agent's failure to do so will be treated as abandonment of sales agreement (contract) - definitely no commission payable if agent fails to act on such a direction.

so why whinge - you have options, if what you claim is valid get to it - lol

[JMP 82]

I also don't understand why if its all legit (and it may be fully legit) why doesn't the seller just take the offer they have now discovered is in play sell at that price and and just pay commission so everyone is happy?

________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________

come on guys , why don't you answer the above question? - the comments offered so far have been evasive and unconvincing and there is no correlation between following up a warranty issue after paying for goods/service and actually not paying for goods/service

now to reprise briefly, to list the property the vendor will have had a contract for sale prepared - it belongs to the vendor who gives a copy to the agent

if its all so sweet as claimed that buyer and vendor have agreed to price (but agent is only obstacle to sale occurring) then they still can complete the sale without necessarily involving the agent - how ?: vendor has or gets a copy of the sales contract from his/her solicitor (in case they gave the original to the agent), buyer and vendor agree on price etc and each signs sales contract (usually you would do this in your solicitors presence - they can arrange this surely ) deposit is paid by buyer to vendor, and sales process is started, and subsequently the vendor informs the agent of what has occurred and why - e.g. vendor informa agent that his (alleged) malpractice necessitated by-passing him, or gives agent whatever excuse/reason is appropriate and the issue of commission can be left to be resolved afterwards on its merits

not happy with that approach - then even easier - the vendor could have their solicitor inform the agent in writing on Monday that the vendor has accepted the buyers offer and direct the agent to process the sale within say 3 working days or else the agent's failure to do so will be treated as abandonment of sales agreement (contract) - definitely no commission payable if agent fails to act on such a direction.

so why whinge - you have options, if what you claim is valid get to it - lol

the crux is that the vendor doesn't want to pay an undeserved comm to the agent... i'm sure the vendor is happy to sell at the asking price, but why should they lose $10k to the agent when they almost lost the deal all together?

it's the law - if al buys this house from the vendor, the agent is entitled to comm because they introduced the house to him... it doesn't matter if the sale is done privately, or through a solicitor... even if the vendor can prove the agent's malpractice, they will still end up getting all or part of the comm...

[Al]

KV2R34GT: Re-read my previous post, i actually highlighted the sentence you wanted answered. If my reply was not to your satisfaction, then oh-well move on.

Someone that gets paid to do a job, then has the means to do the job properly (get a better price) but decides not to fulfill his obligations, due to personal benefits, should not get paid for the job....................simple

On another note: i saw 4 more houses today, two of which i liked, so if i buy this particular property or not is not the issue. Either way i am still willing to help this lady, as her agents are not doing her property justice and i hate dodgy people that get paid to do a job and don't do it properly, for personal gain.

[JMP 82]

Any progress/result Al? Interested to know what happened...

[cosmic starz]

. .. .......can we link this thread with the one about simpletons ?..... ...... ..

[N1GTR]

Dont know how i missed this thread, being an agent (in the past).

Al, the reason i left that industry is exatly this sort of BS that gives the industry a bad name and want nothing to do with it.

Looks like pretty much everything has been covered already, are you still keen on this property?

Out of interest, can you ask the lady how she came to give this particular agent the listing? How did they get in touch? Was it a recommendation from one of her friends? If so, she should speak to her friend (maybe its written above but i missed it)