REA Dirty Tricks!

Yes, an agent should be telling an owner "exactly" or as close as they can, to what the situation is, however for reasons only the owner swill know, more often than not they don't want to listen, as their view of what they own, is different to what other peoples view is.

Sadly, a lot of owners are not open and honest with agents, and believe it or not, many buyers tell their share of stories to agents.

Thankfully, there are enough of both, that show you and treat you with respect, so you do the same in return. Both parties are better off from this type of relationship.
 
Good agents will continue the open houses and marketing until a contract goes unconditional. Hardly a dirty trick. As a vendor, I want my property to continue to be marketed in case a purchaser tries to weasel out of the contract using one of the well known "purchaser dirty tricks".

Hi Wylie, I learned of a "purchaser dirty trick" today. Our conveyancer told us to take the word "Major" out before the building defect clause, which apparently means you can re-neg on the contract if you don't like a broken tile. What other ways have you seen purchasers try to weasel out of a contract?
 
That is why when ever someone says how should I pick a REA I tell them look at how they market/why they market a property in such a way and don't pay attention to what they think the property will get.

When I worked in REA I could count on numerous occasions a vendor saying I am going to give the listing to the person who thinks they can get the highest price. Guess what I never got the listing but would tell them the same story about it is how you market will get you the best price not what agent tells you the highest price.

When you set up a good relationship and the vendor does pay attention you get an amazing result for the vendor in quick time as they are not holding onto this unobtainable price. However as everyone is greedy you have one person saying x and another person saying x + 50k they go with the 50k-100k extra.
 
Hi Wylie, I learned of a "purchaser dirty trick" today. Our conveyancer told us to take the word "Major" out before the building defect clause, which apparently means you can re-neg on the contract if you don't like a broken tile. What other ways have you seen purchasers try to weasel out of a contract?

Doesn't sound right to me... broken tile... really :rolleyes:
 
Hi Wylie, I learned of a "purchaser dirty trick" today. Our conveyancer told us to take the word "Major" out before the building defect clause, which apparently means you can re-neg on the contract if you don't like a broken tile. What other ways have you seen purchasers try to weasel out of a contract?

When I worked as a REA and a buyer would say STB I would use this clause

This sale is subject to the Purchaser obtaining a building inspection report within three clear business days of the Vendor signing this Contract Note. If the building inspection report identifies a major structural defect, the Purchaser may end this contract but only if Purchaser serves written notice on the Vendor with a copy of the building inspection report within three clear business days of the Vendor signing this Contract Note. All monies must be refunded to the Purchaser if the contract is ended.

However for me as a purchaser I use

This Contract is subject to and conditional upon the Buyer carrying out due diligence enquiries within 10 business days of the Contract Date. Should the results not be satisfactory to the Buyer in its sole discretion, the Buyer may terminate the Contract by notice in writing to the Seller's solicitors, to be given within the 10 business days. Upon termination all deposit monies paid will be refunded to the Buyer.

Very different :)


However I have never used the clause to get out or negotiate a lower price. If the broken tile was such an issue I never would of put an offer in to begin with.
 
Last edited:
REA's words not mine, another dirty trick? ;)

I cannot imagine a buyer being able to get out of a contract because of a broken tile. It is possible the vendor was happy to let that buyer go rather than pursue them and force them to settle.
 
And of course, there are many here (and elsewhere) who say this is "crunching" or "conditioning" the vendor. Sometimes the vendor needs to be crunched or conditioned when they have expectations that have no bearing on what the market is doing.
That is true - but only one kind of conditioning.

The conditioning I remember is where the agent meets the Vendor and quotes high to get the listing (assuming the Vendor doesn't know values of properties in that area).

Of course; in this scenario, there is no hope that the property will sell for that quote, so the agent now has to do the dance of conditioning the Vendor over several weeks to come down.
 
That is true - but only one kind of conditioning.

The conditioning I remember is where the agent meets the Vendor and quotes high to get the listing (assuming the Vendor doesn't know values of properties in that area).

Of course; in this scenario, there is no hope that the property will sell for that quote, so the agent now has to do the dance of conditioning the Vendor over several weeks to come down.

I always wonder how people have no idea what their property is worth. Again some people will spend hours researching about a purchase of $5,000 like a TV but will not even look and come up with an estimated price for their house worth 100x more.

My uncle and aunt didn't research before listing and got excited to hear their property grew by 100k in about 12 months being in Dubbo after they spent 20k in renos. Where infact it only had gone up by about the investment they made in the property.
 
My mum used to get very frustrated as an agent when vendors were unrealistic. By the time her sole agency was up, often the vendor would engage a different agent at a more realistic price. The first agent could have sold for the eventually realised price if only the vendor had been realistic at the start.

I recommended an agent to a friend years ago. She had appraisals of $310K to $349K. She listed at $375K. Agent knew I understood his frustration but she would not budge. He brought her contracts for $325K which she refused as it was not close to the $349K higher end of the "possible sale price" scale.

When the listing went stale and his sole agency ran out, she listed it with another agent who said it should sell $310K to $329K (something like that) but they offered a guarantee that if she didn't get over $290K they would not charge her. WTF? If she didn't get $290K and their lower end of the range was $310K they needed a kick up the backside.

She ended up selling for $307K. She should have listened to me and the first agent and not listed it at such a stupidly high figure. She never did seem to realise it was all her own greedy fault. She still blamed the first agent for not selling when she chose the stupidly high listing price. He didn't have a chance.

She lost money, lost time and just wasted everybody's time.

On the other hand we had 2 agents appraise a property one was $335-$355000 and the other was $340-$360000. We looked at the market and what was available, listed with the first agent at $389000 and sold four days later to the first people who inspected for $389000. The photographer had only just left the house before the buyers inspected.
 
I always wonder how people have no idea what their property is worth. Again some people will spend hours researching about a purchase of $5,000 like a TV but will not even look and come up with an estimated price for their house worth 100x more.

My uncle and aunt didn't research before listing and got excited to hear their property grew by 100k in about 12 months being in Dubbo after they spent 20k in renos. Where infact it only had gone up by about the investment they made in the property.

Dubbo had a very slow period for a while. We bought a place in 2006,the valuer valued it in excess of the purchase price. Fir a few years prices were stagnant but there has been a reasonable increase since.
 
When I worked as a REA and a buyer would say STB I would use this clause

This sale is subject to the Purchaser obtaining a building inspection report within three clear business days of the Vendor signing this Contract Note. If the building inspection report identifies a major structural defect, the Purchaser may end this contract but only if Purchaser serves written notice on the Vendor with a copy of the building inspection report within three clear business days of the Vendor signing this Contract Note. All monies must be refunded to the Purchaser if the contract is ended.

However for me as a purchaser I use

This Contract is subject to and conditional upon the Buyer carrying out due diligence enquiries within 10 business days of the Contract Date. Should the results not be satisfactory to the Buyer in its sole discretion, the Buyer may terminate the Contract by notice in writing to the Seller's solicitors, to be given within the 10 business days. Upon termination all deposit monies paid will be refunded to the Buyer.

Very different :)


However I have never used the clause to get out or negotiate a lower price. If the broken tile was such an issue I never would of put an offer in to begin with.

Yes I would use your second clause when buying, but I wouldn't use it to negotiate on a minor issue I should have seen
 
On the other hand we had 2 agents appraise a property one was $335-$355000 and the other was $340-$360000. We looked at the market and what was available, listed with the first agent at $389000 and sold four days later to the first people who inspected for $389000. The photographer had only just left the house before the buyers inspected.

What did you think the property was worth before getting in two agents? To have two agents so close sounds strange to me, if it then sold for $55K more than the minimum of the range and $50K for the minimum range for the second one.

To sell for full listing price in four days is stranger still, almost like it may have been worth even more? I don't suppose the first agent arranged for an appraisal with someone they knew, the other agent?

Very odd that two agents would get it so wrong...
 
REA's

Always good for a laugh, there was a study somewhere about REA's being less trustworthy than pro's

Found it - Link

The only professions to rank worse than Real Estate Agents in trustworthiness were psychics/astrologers,politicians, car salesmen and telemarketers

Funny-Real-Estate-Agent.gif


comics-dilbert.jpg
 
What did you think the property was worth before getting in two agents? To have two agents so close sounds strange to me, if it then sold for $55K more than the minimum of the range and $50K for the minimum range for the second one.

To sell for full listing price in four days is stranger still, almost like it may have been worth even more? I don't suppose the first agent arranged for an appraisal with someone they knew, the other agent?

Very odd that two agents would get it so wrong...

We thought it was worth $380000. It sold to an out of town couple who thought it was cheap compared to what was available where they came from. There was a lot of house for the money which was why we had bought it in the first place. One of the issues with the appraisals was a neighbour had separated earlier in the year and sold their house cheaply. Our house was presented nicely. Our agent was concerned when the bank's valuer valued our house that it might not reach the sale price.

This area (mid north coast NSW) might be getting a bit of a surge. Two other friends sold their houses in a neighbouring town about the same time very quickly.

But the main difference was our buyers had some specific needs, the agent showed them how our house could be adapted to meet those needs. We went with the agent who had appraised slightly lower because we thought they were a better agent.
 
Interesting thread - it's a personal rule of mine not to get into people's opinions (any more). Opinions are like *** holes, everyone has one and they all stink. ;)

However to the OP, what was the outcome?
Did the agent come back and ask you to purchase the house because the deal fell through?

Was it a trick?

In SA legislation prevents us from saying that there are other offers on the table if there isn't! So most of us don't!

I don't see anything wrong with telling people the truth - we have no other offers yet, this listing is new so we would be happy to take yours as the first one.

In this market properties sell quickly, investment properties lease very quickly 3 days is the highest vacancy we've had this month, and that was negotiated by the LL needing access in between tenancies.

No dirty tricks are required.

But there are dirty people in every profession - you can't help that!
 
I'm not saying they don't lie - you can't ever stop people from lying.
There are laws in place.

They need to provide proof when asked to. Especially when asked by OCBA who provide licenses.

Embezzlement of money through trust accounts is also illegal - but some still do it :(
 
I'm not saying they don't lie - you can't ever stop people from lying.
There are laws in place.

They need to provide proof when asked to. Especially when asked by OCBA who provide licenses.

Embezzlement of money through trust accounts is also illegal - but some still do it :(

or murder..

When I worked as a REA I would show people a signed contract for the property if there was another offer and I had taken the other offer. Countless times was asked can we see their offer which no one ever got to see.

It becomes a bit harder to show an offer if it is signed with another agent within the agency as they will not let you hold their offer.
 
Back
Top