Why I Like This Estate Agent
by Peter Mericka B.A., LL.B Real Estate Lawyer andQualified Practising Conveyancer
Victoria
Lawyers Real Estate
I have never met Chris Warren, but I already like the guy.
Why? Because he is the first estate agent I have encountered who seems prepared to treat consumers as they should be treated - with honesty and respect.Regular readers of this blog will be aware that I come down heavily on those who resort to illegal, improper and unethical behaviour in the real estate industry. (There is certainly a regular supply of blog material generated by such people!) So when someone like Chris Warren emerges, it is important that his example is given publicity.
Let's have a look at what Chris Warren is telling consumers:
Most importantly, Chris Warren says,
But he goes even further, advising vendors and purchasers alike of the need for pre-contract legal advice.Estate agents are NOT valuers!
9 Comments:
I am amazed you are so willing to lable all real estate agents as sharks and cast so much scorn on the industry, yet there is precious little comment on the short comings of lawyers. At least there seems to be one agent who you acknowledge is not put on this Earth to scam unsuspecting consumers.
Hi David,
That's easy to address; just provide me with the details of any other estate agents who agree that estate agents should not be valuing properties for vendors, who do not seek to control the contract, and who actively encourage vendors and purchasers to obtain legal advice BEFORE either signs a contract, and I'll acknowledge them.
I think you'll find, as I have, that they're pretty scarce.
I agree that lots of lawyers have lots of shortcomings, and we've made mention of these in previous postings. If you have any examples of improper conduct by lawyers in real estate matters I'd love to publish them.
I look forward to hearing from you.
We, as an agency, have long represented ourselves to Vendors as marketing agents and not valuers. We much prefer to show our skills in promoting buyer inspections and competition rather than provide valuations. We have run independant market research and as a result of this research have found the vast majority of our Vendors are more than satisfied with the service we provide. This have been proven by the large numbers of customer service awards we have won in the last five years. Rather than being black and white come over to the grey where the rest of the population lives.
David, do you nominate your estate agency as one which refers vendors to valuers instead of providing "appraisals", does not try to control the contract, and which advises vendors and purchasers to obtain legal advice BEFORE signing the contract?
If so, please provide the name of your agency, and I will congratulate you publicly. If not, then I do not expect that you would want to reveal your identity.
I do not refer to valuers, I encourage Vendors to do their own research in conjunction with information I provide to them. I am happy for Vendors and purchasers to obtain legal advice but once again it is not my role to encourage them to do so, however I recognise their right to do so if it makes the tranaction more palatable to them. As for control, well, that is a subjective and very emotive word which creates the illusion of a big, bad salesman domiating all other parties and this I emphatically deny. I have no fear of my company name as I am very proud of our record and our dealings with the general public. I co own Barry Plant Croydon.
Barry Plant Croydon is currently running a newspaper advertising campaign which states:
"Call your local office today to arrange your market appraisal"
and
"Our red carpet real estate service just got $400 better. We'll pay up to $400 of your conveyancing fees on any property you list exclusively with us..."
As co-owner of Barry Plant Croydon, what's your position on conflicts of interest David?
No conflict of interest here, we do not stipulate where or who they use for conveyancing services. If they came to you we would still pay the $400 dollars. It is simply an incentive to call us for a run down of our services. As far as the wording goes we are conforming to standard market terminology, however, we do make it clear at all appointments that we are there for our marketing experience rather than our supposed ability to guess the sale price. Clutching at straws will not get you anywhere. As far as conlicts of interest go, how about you involvement in finacial services and conyancing? Do you provide encouragement for your clients to use your own finace company regardless of whether it provides the most impartial advice?
If your "market appraisal" is nothing to do with providing a valuation, and consumers who respond to it get little more than a rundown on your "marketing experience" (a definition of this would be useful), then what is the difference between your approach and the "Foot In The Door" mentioned in the posting below this one?
I have met an agent in the Adelaide Western Suburbs who is completely conscientious about looking after the vendor with extremely high ethics.
He happens to be a good friend of mine, but the agency and environment around him are corrupting him into improper ways of doing things. The point I'm trying (unsuccessfully) to make is that many times it is not the agents fault, but in either their working environment or 'farm area', they have to use slightly swifter ways to generate their business. Some agents are people and people with families to feed.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home