Real Estate Best Practice - Introduction
by Peter Mericka B.A., LL.B Real Estate Lawyer andQualified Practising Conveyancer
Victoria
Lawyers Real Estate
“The real estate industry is a dishonest industry!”
This simple statement will be regarded by some as a serious and unjustified attack on a powerful and well-established industry, and by others as a trite truism.
In coming posts we will put the real estate industry under the microscope and examine it in a way that has never before been attempted. We are confident that anyone who examines the evidence on a fair and objective basis will conclude that the real estate industry is in urgent need of reform.
How will we go about our examination?
We believe that one of the best ways to get to the heart of the problem is to follow the money. We will examine the ways in which money moves from consumers to estate agents, from estate agents to lawyers, conveyancers, advertisers and other industry participants, and how the industry rewards those who support it.But we won’t stop there. After examining the industry and exposing the mutations that have caused it to grow into the grotesque behemoth we have all come to know, we will recommend a set of standards.
We believe that a new set of industry standards will develop a true “Real Estate Best Practice” model.
We invite all interested parties to have their say, and we promise a very interesting set of postings over the coming months.
47 Comments:
I have been in the industry for around 5 years now and I am a Principal of my own agency.
I too believe that the Real Estate Industry needs a good shake up, as some vendors and agents are guilty of the wrong thing.
I believe that Real Estate Agents should be paid a fee for service just like everyone else, as we can work on selling properties sometimes for a few months yet do not get paid for out time and expenses.
In today’s society who works for nothing - no one, yet Agents are expected to work on vendors properties sometimes for quite a few weeks yet do not get paid because if we don’t sell the property they simply take it off us and give it to another agent.
If the vendors had to pay us a fee for service, it would make the vendors more accountable instead of simply using our resources for nothing as they would think twice about changing agents every few weeks because they have not sold their property.
Agents today have to do exams to keep up with legislation, so why should we work for free, other people get paid an hourly rate, so should we.
I have been saying for ages that the Industry needs to be reviewed and I for one would love to have the opportunity to talk to you about my thoughts on the matter.
Rhonda raises a very interesting point. Many estate agents find that vendors attempt to avoid payment of what they regard as excessive agent fees, particularly where the property sells quickly and with little input from the estate agent. This, in turn leads to estate agents develop strategies to prevent vendors from avoiding payment (the Exclusive Sale Authority used by Victoria estate agents is full of such strategie).
Similarly, estate agents who spend hours on weekends showing people through properties risk losing many valuable man-hours, being paid nothing if the property fails to sell.
The solution to this problem is for estate agents to charge an hourly rate for their services. But would this not simply expose the unjustifiable excesses of the industry in terms of over-servicing? I'm sure that if consumers had to pay an hourly rate the demand for real estate "services" would drop of the graph.
I like how you've appointed yourself as the watchdog for the real estate industry. Very amusing arrangement given your commercial interests. Seriously man, how retarded do you think people are? ;)
And in relation to "the solution to this problem is for estate agents to charge an hourly rate for their services" comment, I find it amusing and even ironic how you charge a "fee" for your real estate sales services, as apposed to an hourly rate. Oh but wait, you're a real estate "lawyer" so that doesn't apply.
The hourly rate is simply the first step in weaning estate agents from the commission nipple. It forces the estate agent to carefully consider the value of the service being offered, and allows to consumer to determine whether he or she is getting value for money.
A fixed fee takes value for money even further, giving the consumer certaintly as to the final cost, while forcing the service provider to keep the cost low in order to remain competitive.
At present the real estate industry operates as a cartel.
And i find it absolutely no surprise that you have, thus far, refrained from posting my previous comment.
We try to publish all comments we receive. Unfortunately, many of the comments we receive are anonymous, and of these many contain material that is unfit for publication (hence the desire for the authors to remain anonymous).
A guaranteed way to have material published is for a commentator to have the courage to fully identify him/herself.
A cartel? You cannot be serious. If the real estate industry operates as a "cartel", as you claim, why are there such disparities in the amount of commission charged by various real estate agencies?
Also, if you had any knowledge in the realm of microeconomics, which clearly you do not, you'd quickly realise that the law industry and real estate industry have VERY similar market forms (i.e., monopolistic competition).
Out of curiosity, why do you not attack law firms that charge commission for the provision of services (i.e., those that take a % cut out of court settlement/ damages awarded etc.)? Isn't that effectively the same thing?
Having an arts degree and a law degree [i]does not[/i] make you an economist Mr. Mericka.
xox
My comment regarding the real estate industry operating as a cartel refers to the fact that all estate agents operate on the basis of commission, and none of them operate on the basis of fee for service.
The fact is that any estate agent who even attempts to provide a fee related to the "service" he or she provides will soon be out of business. Why? Because estate agents do not provide a service at all.
The services offered by estate agents are invented or unnecessary services.
Commission is the only way to extract dollars from consumers when the service on offer really does not exist, or is better performed by professionals who do not charge anywhere near what the estate agent charges.
Just because some estate agent vary the amount of commission is not the issue, they ALL charge commission, and that is the issue.
I assume that you're another anonymous estate agent?
Hi,
I have only recently been introduced and employed in to the real estate industry, and whilst I am honoured to be working in this field, I will admit that it has crossed my mind that my job to sell property or even manage rentals may be prejudiced by the wrong doings of fellow and prior real estate agents that have abused the system and the trust of purchasers, vendors and all other associated parties.
Whilst looking through the Australian Real Estate Blog website, I was made aware of Real Estate Best Practise, http://www.realestatebestpractice.com.au/, tracing you through the MelbourneIT registry and finding the holding company Lawyers Real Estate Pty. Ltd., I just wanted to let know all those involved in this project and benchmarking process which I believe when completed will be highly soughtafter - and massive congratulations for attempting the project!
Despite only just hatching to this industry - for any help or input that you may desire to ask for, please do not hesitate.
Again, congratulations!
Looking forward to final product.
--
Kind Regards,
Adam Dren.
Real Estate Agent.
adamdren@gmail.com
Thanks Adam. I hope there are more like you out there.
A word of warning though, entering the real estate industry as a new estate agent is like a new recruit entering a corrupt police force; you may have the best of intentions, but there are strong influences at work.
A police recruit in a corrupt police force has a number of options to choose from:
1. To become as corrupt as the rest.
2. To keep quiet and let corruption flourish.
3. To give up and get out.
4. To become a "whistleblower" and attempt to bring about change.
Any newcomer to the real estate industry is faced with similar choices.
I can assure you that there are very few estate agents in category 4.
Who i am is not important and no, I am not a real estate estate, nor do i have industry ties. I'm merely an educated observer that is highly amused by your 'holier than thou' grandiosity.
You state that "the services offered by estate agents are invented or unnecessary services" yet fail to explain why there is strong demand for such services.
If the services offered by the real estate industry are unnecessary, there'd be no demand and thus, no supply and thus, no real estate industry. Again, basic knowledge you should have acquired in secondary school economics.
Also, why does your real estate agency, Lawyers Real Estate, in many instances, offer identical services to those provided by a "real estate agency". For example, Real Estate Lawyers advertise that they provide signage, photography, and internet listings. Last time i checked, real estate agencies provided all of the above "invented and unnecessary services".
You also (perhaps conveniently) failed to address my question regarding the very close parallels between law and real estate firms and their respective market forms. As such, i will reiterate:
Why do you not attack law firms that charge commission for the provision of services (i.e., those that take a % cut out of court settlement/ damages awarded etc.)? Isn't that effectively the same thing? I can only assume that you are you scared of litigation. I would never hire a lawyer with such timidity.
Anonymous, you are wrong when you say that who you are is not important. You have attacked me personally rather than sticking to the issues, and this warrants disclosure as to who you are.
Unless and until you disclose your identity you comments have about as much credibility as a dummy bid.
To address the supposed demand for real estate services let us first define "real estate services". Arranging for the erection of signs, photography and internet listings are hardly necessary services and they certainly don't justify many thousands of dollars in commission.
Is there anyone out there who can provide a clear and itemised list of the actual "services" that estate agents offer?
I am an EX Ray White sales agent terminated recently after 11 monthsby an absolute cracker of a guy. Or should I say crackup!
One of his favourites was "Open Listings aren't worth a pinch of shit". The reason being was that with only 60 days to 'sell' a property, you couldn't 'educate' an Open Listed vendor on a price reduction as every other agent then has the chance to jump on the extra potential of selling a reduced price property. At least with an Exclusive Listed property, the agent has a chance to 'educate' the buyer with low offers to get them to drop to a more realistic price AND has more control over the vendor.
Oh it's been a lovely 11 months or so. I had thought 'sales' skills such as I have seen and been bashed over the head with went out about 20 years ago ... BUT there are so many agents pulling the same shit.
By the way, Tim O'Dwyer's name was dropped as a motivating factor at a recent REIQ legal training session I went to and if I recall the correct words the trainer used him as a spur to get us to make sure our contracts were up to scratch as guys like him would "rip us to shreds" if one bit of the contract was wrong. Fair enough. Shouldn't have agents doing contracts in any case ...
"To address the supposed demand for real estate services let us first define "real estate services". Arranging for the erection of signs, photography and internet listings are hardly necessary services and they certainly don't justify many thousands of dollars in commission."
You appear charge many thousands of dollars for those services, and others. Real estate agents simply do the same thing and offer services you're not willing to provide.
Your business model is based around home owners doing all the work when it comes to selling their home. And those suckers give give you 3000+ dollars even if their house doesn't sell! Haha! Even funnier is that you've had clearly deluded vendors that have had their house on the market for up to three YEARS without success!
Now, this is becoming interesting. We have an assertion that "real estate agents offer services you're not willing to provide", but no mention as to what those services are.
There is something of a hint where you allude to "home owners doing all the work", but no specifics.
This inability to nominate the "services" or "the work" provided by estate agents reinforces the view that such services are like the emperor's new clothes.
Consumers are starting to see that the emperor is wearing nothing.
Again, I ask can anyone nominate any specific services provided by an estate agent?
Again, I ask can anyone nominate any specific services provided by an estate agent?
Personally I feel, your role as an estate agent is to provide the vendor with the best price available on the market; and as we all know, a property is only worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it.
If people acted like people, and treated people like people and remained honest, content, loyal and determined - there would be no need to clarify the role of an estate agent.
Your job description is simple and quite universal. A Hong Kong estate agent and Australia estate agent do not vary in their job descriptions, but they vary their treatment to each particular client; hence, culture.
Why this is being debated is quite frankly a large waste of blog space.
So how about adressing the issue of what particular benchmarks would be appropriate in the real estate industry that wont affect hard-working agents that act accordingly and deserve a cut of the sale price?
Hi Adam, unfortunately you have not nominated any specific services at all, and have simply clouded the real issue further. It's not possible to deal with benchmarks until we know what it is we're trying to benchmark.
For example, how does one benchmark "the best price"? As you have rightly pointed out, a property is only worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it, so what is the role of the agent in this?
Your reference to "hard-working agents" is also interesting. How does an agent "work hard"? What does an agent do when he or she is "working hard"? In Australia a real estate franchise called Hocking Stuart nominated itself as "The Hardest Working Agents" and ran a TV advert. The advert portrayed a sick estate agent on an intravenous drip conducting an auction - that's how hard it was for Hocking Stuart to put a finger on what a "hard working" agent does.
Finally, you suggest that an estate agent "deserve(s) a cut of the sale price". Now this is a whopper - WHY? What does an estate agent do that entitles him or her to part ownership of the client's property?
Again, I ask if anyone can nominate a specific service that the estate agent does that warrants his or her taking a slice of their client's land?
Finally Adam, I can assure you that consumers do not think debate over what an estate agent does to deserve being paid at a rate in the vinicty of $675 per hour is a waste of blog space.
Anonymous, (you know which one you are) your last posting was rejected because of the offensive material it contained. Unfortunately it is not possible censor comments made on this blog, and the only editorial options are to publish or reject.
Make your points. Make them passionately, emphatically and angrily if you want to, but please stick to the issues. Rude personal comments cannot be tolerated in a public forum.
You can submit your comment again, but please deliver it in a more acceptable format.
I am sitting back reading the abundant attacks made between a representative of the legal industry and what appears to be a procession of current and ex agents, with some quite colourful expressions of the "anonymous".
I have proudly been a Real Estate Salesperson for over 15 years and have always considered myself to offer complete integrity in every transaction, conversation and task I have had. (I may be considered rare…but the truth is, there are plenty of good, honest and hard working agents)…It is true that there are also many that consider themselves far more important than their clients….BOO to them.
By the way there are more jokes about lawyers than Real Estate Agents
It is interesting that Agents are guilty until proven innocent, usually proven once the property has sold and settled.
To the question of “service”… I was wondering what you consider to be a service and what is considered otherwise. The range of “services” and the way business is conducted, varies between state to state, but in South Australia, as has been the case as long as I have been working in the industry, A Real Estate Agent is responsible for all matters from Appraisal to settlement (“Exchange” in some parts of the world) (apart from the conveyancing) and service is provided is ongoing, even years after the property has changed hands.
Service, by way of a dictionary meaning is
1. an act of help or assistance
2. Serving the public, rather than producing goods
Others refer to service (as is food, cars, hotels etc) so we don’t pour our clients coffee or tea, or change the oil in the car …. But we so provide an extensive range of services – these do not incorporate the erection of signs etc as pointed out earlier, as I believe they are in fact promotional execution.
Now if my understanding of service is clear (and try to put this straight if I am not), services offered would include but certainly not limited to
1. Professional property appraisal
2. Correct advice and information on how best to market the property
3. Preparation of marketing material
4. Legal search ordering and inspection
5. preparation of legal documentation
6. Property inspections with potential purchasers
7. Negotiation
Now I have many more, but I hope this is on track with the meaning of service
By the way….there has still been no charge made, until the property settles and if a good good agent has done their job correctly, the commission charged (and it is always negotiated) will still have provided a more than acceptable “net” result for the person we are working for (ie The Vendor)
Akubra lists what she understands to be estate agent services, and includes in this list "preparation of legal documentation". Let's just focus on this "service" for a moment, and see if we can get some clarification.
For whom does the estate agent prepare the legal documentation? The vendor? The purchaser? Perhaps both?
No, the estate agent prepares legal documentation for the estate agent, to achieve the estate agent's goal - commission.
Here's another way to get to the truth: If the estate agent could win and seal a commission simply by putting a purchaser in touch with a vendor, would the estate agent want to become involved in the preparation of legal work?
Perhaps there is some legitimate reason why estate agents prepare legal documentation. Does anyone want to suggest what that may be?
And does anyone want to explain how on earth an estate agent can truly "negotiate"? In thousands of real estate transactions I have never once met an estate agent who could conduct a genuine negotiation.
Anonymous, your latest post has been rejected because of rude personal attacks. However, the following material is reproduced from your posting:
"Also, you state that
'I can assure you that consumers do not think debate over what an estate agent does to deserve being paid at a rate in the vinicty (sic) of $675 per hour is a waste of blog space.'
$675 per hour? Where'd you make that number up from? If real estate agents earned that amount of money per hour, they'd routinely be pulling in more than $1,000,000 a year which is of course, not true. Lies lies lies."
The answer to your question can be found on the following page:
http://www.lawyersconveyancing.com.au/unfair.asp
And what about the remainder of Akubra's list? You appear to have conveniently overlooked it.
Oh, I haven't overlooked anything in Akubra's list. The problem is that Akubra's list can't be dealt with properly as a whole.
The nebulous generalisations have to be defined, examined and discussed in order to expose them for what they are.
For example, what does "marketing" mean. How does the concept of "marketing" apply to a suburban residential house. In effect the greater part of the marketing relates to the marketing of the estate agent who controls the vendor's "marketing" budget.
And what of the definition of "marketing expenses" in the REIV's Exclusive Sale Authority, which includes an extra little double-dip for the estate agent?
All of these will be examined in detail as we establish Real Estate Best Practice.
Anonymous, you really must refrain from being personal. Keep your comments general and on point and they will be published, despite your need for anonymity.
Perhaps you could use pseudonyms or hypothetical situations instead of identifying individuals in your material.
Alternatively, you can send me an email or contact me by telephone to identify yourself, but you will then have to accept responsibility for your comments.
Anonymous, I sense your frustration but you must not allow matters to become personal. Discuss the issues, not individuals.
I note your claim to have
"...attracted the interest of a mass-media outlet (Today Tonight)..."
but I really don't believe that any news media would be interested in your comments unless you identify yourself.
Again, you're invited to contribute, but try to remain objective. Try using hypothetical examples, they still get the message across.
Of course I'm going to identify myself. Just because I'd prefer to remain anonymous at this stage (the joys of the internet), don't assume i won't be willing to reveal my identity when it really matters. You'll probably see two or three other familiar faces as well. Have fun. Kisses xox
Anonymous, you do realise that your reliance on secrecy, non-disclosure, refusal to address the important issues and avoidance of responsibility are all clearly present in the way you've conducted yourself.
Seems to come so naturally. I'm sure you're an estate agent.
Alright then if you wish to focus on one point at a time (and wish to deviate from the larger issue and “agent bash”) then let’s look at it. You have raised a point on legal documentation and screamed off onto commission.
Don’t you think you should deal with one matter rather than put up smoke screens in the guise of another matter…your real gripe?
How on earth can you suggest that documentation is prepared for the estate agent just to achieve commission – that is simply inflaming the issue.
The documentation is prepared to allow the sale to have a legal standing and is prepared under express legislative guidelines and requirements. It is a small but significant part of what is done. To suggest that we would rather do without the paperwork may for many be true, but it IS done so let’s stick to the facts rather than the hypothetical.
Now you wanted to deal with one issue and raised others, against your own point. So I won’t get off the track, I will deal with the next point you have (i.e. negotiation). IF you have not once met an agent who could conduct a genuine negotiation, then I can truly say you either have a real problem in Victoria or you are dealing with a select group of underachievers,
A truly professional agent is not merely an order taker and form filler, contrary to your belief. Simplistically negotiation is the dialogue of obtaining agreement between two parties, In the case of Real Estate (the Vendor and purchaser).
I believe the role in Negotiation for an agent is to ensure that the best possible price is achieved on behalf of the vendor (i.e. to ensure that the purchaser would indeed not pay $1 more than he or she has). We have been “appointed” by the Vendor to do so and (at least my case) will always do so, even if it takes days, weeks or months. (and I can provide evidence of this).
By the way, you have mentioned “thousands of transactions” ….Were you present at these negotiations, or simply handling the after effect? You speak as if you were there, which I doubt would be the case.
It appears all you wish to do in this post is deal with the commission that is earned (yes. earned).
Akubra, you raise the issue of my involvement in 1,000's of transactions, and find it hard to believe that this is possible. What you don't understand Akubra, is that negotiations invariably continue well after the signatures have been procured by the estate agent.
Negotiations include all sorts of changes, extensions, cancellations, rectifications etc. etc. to which the estate agent is utterly oblivious. Oftentimes these negotiations are necessitated by estate agent incompetence in the preparation of legal documents.
That issue dealt with, I'll discuss the reasons why estate agents play "lawyer" with legal documents in my next comment.
Now, let's be objective about this. Is there any need for an estate agent to become involved in the preparation of legal documents? The answer is NO!
The role of the estate agent is, supposedly, to find a purchaser to buy the property. Having found the purchaser, the estate agent should put the purchaser into contact with the vendor's lawyer so that that the sale can be properly negotiated. The role of the vendor's lawyer is to ensure that the vendor's interests are protected.
The purchaser should have the benefit of his/her own legal advice. The role of the purchaser's lawyer is to negotiate on behalf of the purchaser.
But the estate agent has interests to protect too; but they are not those of the vendor or the purchaser. Rather, the estate agent wants to protect the estate agent's interests.
The estate agent has chosen an all-or-nothing, win-or-lose commission-based remuneration structure. This means that if there is no sale the estate agent may lose heavily. Thus, it is in the interests of the estate agent to protect, not the parties but the sale.
So, the estate agent seeks to control the contract, not to protect either party, but to protect the sale and the commission.
Or does someone want to suggest so other motivation on the part of the estate agent?
Yes…Lets be objective about this
I Hope you realise that that should be a 2 way street
I have the right to earn a living, but I am not controlled by the commission. I know that if I so my job well, I will have a career that spans until I retire, looking after repeat clients and referrals from them. That would not happen if I simply chase the dollar…my clients are smarter than that. My foremost consideration IS to my clients.
Now before I continue this, I would like to clarify, that I am a Real Estate Agent In South Australia, so I maybe putting my 2 bobs worth in where it is not required, but as the internet is a world wide forum, I hope I can add some points that are worthwhile to everyone.
In South Australia, we do in fact have to pass a government approved Real Estate course to 1. become a licensed salesperson ( now a certified traineeship) and 2. To hold an Agents license further extensive study involving contract and property law (These are conducted by representatives of the legal industry).
Yes the role of the Agent is find a buyer, but (if educated to so do) why should a lawyer have the exclusive domain to handle “negotiations”…Surely that implies that lawyers just want their slice of the action….well if you can point the finger about “payment” then so can I.
Lawyers and/or licensed conveyancers are then responsible for “checking” the legal requirements and in my opinion are not negotiators.
Your accusations of impropriety are too generalised and although I have no time for cowboys in any industry, you seem to make it seem that every single real estate agent is just in it for themselves.
By your inference of all or nothing, are you suggesting that a real estate agent simply charges for the individual components of their services? Say a charge for an appraisal, another for attending an inspection another for writing the offer…..come on….that would be open to far more corruption than any other way. We would then charge for phone calls, photo copying, charge by the minute for phone calls…mmmmm that sound like a lawyer.
Please…I am not suggesting lawyers are corrupt, but I have been divorced and I know how those charges are made
May I make a suggestion…if you want to improve the industry in your state, why not look at some of the models in other parts of the country and perhaps overseas and then apply “an objective” strategy to create an industry that is a respected by all one…not just make assertions that they are all money hungry ego maniacs.
Back to the real issues Akubra. I asked:
"So, the estate agent seeks to control the contract, not to protect either party, but to protect the sale and the commission."
Why do you want to touch the real estate contract at all Akubra, instead of leaving it to the parties' lawyers? I put it to you that your interest in the contract is commission driven, not client driven. How do you respond to this?
I say you know nothing about me except you are tainted by your own preconception that we are all Agents are tarred by the same brush.
Dont start thinking that I am misrepresenting myself.
The fairest way to treat "this" respondant is to realise that I at least have complete integrity.
What about the rest of the comments I made?
Akubra, your integrity hangs on your answer to the question I asked you:
"Why do you want to touch the real estate contract at all Akubra, instead of leaving it to the parties' lawyers?"
How do you answer?
The purchaser should have the benefit of his/her own legal advice. The role of the purchaser's lawyer is to negotiate on behalf of the purchaser.
This could be very much related to medicine and many other lines of particular work.
Should my private health insurer negotiate the procedures of my operation, timing and billing?
No. This is decided by the doctors given the complexities and nature of the operation.
Very much the same way you're entitled to provide me with advice, that doesn't mean that you are to become involved in an operation where you're not qualified or entitled to make decisions; especially regarding payment.
You're attempting to change something (commission) that has been apart of the industry since it began. It is common-knowledge that a vendor can discuss payments with an estate agent and for heavens sake the easiest way of addressing your issue entirely is to do probono work; but then how would anyone survive and feel rewarded?
The point I want to make is that commission is charged when the service being provided is of dubious value.
It's important to note that estate agents claim the "result" i.e. the fact of a sale, as being their doing, when their contribution to the sale is often minimal. (Consider the situation where the next-door neighbour buys the property the day after the sale sign is erected.)
This is why commission is so wrong.
If the estate agent were to charge a fee based on his or her value to the client the fee structure would become fair.
And by whom it is fair?
To consumers of course.
We regularly hear complaints from consumers who say, "The buyer found the property before the agent found the buyer, why should I pay a commission to the agent?"
How would you answer such a question Adam?
"The point I want to make is that commission is charged when the service being provided is of dubious value."
This naive comment just insults the people that enlist the services of real estate agents and overlooks the fact that people have freedom of choice. People can choose to sell their house privately if they so wish.
Also, if the services provided by real estate agents are truly of "dubious value", why on Earth would individuals agree to pay for such services in the first place? Your subjective evaluation (which is clouded by self-interest)does not equate to a universal truism.
And one last point. Isn't it common place for LAW firms to take a cut of their clients settlement or damages awarded (i.e., commission based payments)? In such situations, are they truly representing their clients best interests or are they simply "chasing the dollar"? Is a commission based payment in this situation, for Law firms as apposed to real estate agencies, also "wrong?"
Jake, the point being made was that estate agents use a commission structure BECAUSE they cannot identify any services for which they could charge on a fee-for-service basis.
The commission assumes that the estate agent is ALWAYS the reason that a sale takes place, when the estate agent is rarely the prime-mover, let alone the cause of the sale.
If it is accepted that the estate agent is not the cause of the sale, then it follows that commission, based on this event is an unfair method of charging consumers.
Peter,
There are a few questions I think you should answer …just so I am clear as to the actual reason for this subject.
As I have raised many points before per entry, I will ask one at a time, as most of them have been either ignored or has allowed the subject to get off track
I hope to either make a valid point of discussion or to discover if there is some other agenda here (In my mind at least)…so please… humour me
My first question is…
What do you actually believe is the role of an estate agent/salesperson?
Akubra,
The role of the real estate agent is similar to that of an introduction agent - to bring two parties together, and then to allow those parties to do business without the estate agent becoming involved.
Once the parties have been introduced, the estate agent's role is finished.
So in other words, you would be happy with trained monkeys.
Are you actually aware of a day in the life of an Agent.
What so you actually believe an Estate agent does? .. Please avoid the "ripping off" comments for now
Akubra,
Estate agents go beyond their role of introducing purchasers to vendors, they actually take control of the legal aspects of the transaction.
The crucial question is why estate agents see a need to go further than simply introducing the parties and then leaving the parties to do business.
I say that if estate agents were paid a fee for service for facilitating the introduction, they would not try to manipulate the parties by controlling the transaction through the contract.
So…correct me if I misunderstand…the 2 points that this all boils down to is
IT IS YOUR OPINION
1. Agents should charge a fee for service
2. Agents stop at the introduction point
Is that all?
You said that the crucial question was why agents see the need to go further. My question is why should it be the exclusive domain of lawyers to write the contract? Lawyers and conveyancers are not being excluded from doing their duty, but you are suggesting that YOU have exclusive domain.
I suggest that you are using FEAR to justify your stance
Akubra,
This is not a tussle between the estate agent and the lawyer for the right to control the contract. Rather, it's about purchasers and vendors as consumers.
The problem is that estate agents take control of the contract because of the commission fee structure. If estate agents were paid a fee for service, and were paid after the introduction was made, they would not try to control the contract.
The purchaser is entitled to make an offer personally or through her lawyer, to the vendor or the vendor's lawyer, without the estate agent intervening.
Can a real estate agent advertise a rental property with the pictures of a different property? I have lease a property at an advertised address but the pictures advertised were for a better property in the same street, similar design. Are there penalties for this form of misleading advertising?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home