The idea was put forward in another thread, of being a property re-negotiator.
I talk to banks every day and one issue we are seeing is that the bank won’t lend on a valuation lower than expected, the builders/developer wants to sue to close and the client has already signed contracts so they are tied in.
this would mean there is room for a person who goes in on behalf of the client and re-negotiates the price, i’m not sure how this would work exactly, i’d need to talk to Mr. A and probably a few solicitors too but it could be something that enterprising pinsters could do?
charge (for instance) 8% of whatever money you save the person or something?
what route to take or the workings of it would take some figuring out, but it is something that can be done and would help people out too.
anybody interested in something like this?
TUG: slate my capitalist ways via pm’s preferably! (just joking with ya mate!)
I had a discussion with a solicitor friend of mine some time ago on this type of idea - specifically aimed at re-negotiating (inc making life difficult for) developers who are pressurizing people to close who can’t - those caught in a contract etc.
Anyhow, we agreed there was merit in the idea, and shortly afterwards he forwarded me this …
I’d say most are buy to let as well so try to get the rental/letting business off them when they complete sale at re-negotiated price.
that turns a small window of opportunity over the next 18 months in to a long term revenue stream maybe.
It’s a great idea. You could also offer an ancillary service advising people on whether to buy a property or not (i.e. in most cases explaining to them why they shouldn’t buy a particular property). I see it going like this:
Punter: I’m thinking of buying this 2 bed shoebox for €400k on a homechoice loan.
MB: First of all, €400k for a 2 bed apartment is not a sustainable price…so, in conculsion, you are better off renting for the time being until the price returns to the region of 3-4x the average wage.
You could charge €1k for each session, and it’s easily worth this as you would be saving the punters much more than that.
Definitely a good service for all concerned. This crowd claim to have negotiated a million euros worth of reductions in 2008, so 5-8% gives a very decent profit, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they charge more than that. I’d imagine that you could represent a number of clients buying from the same developer, making it a very profitable business indeed. No need to be greedy though…
Don’t worry, anyone can read the pin for free because we all know that they are all just doom and gloom crazies. In fact, why don’t all pinsters just commit suicide? However, if someone with a fancy high street office & a professional-sounding title tells you something, it must be true. Hence it’s worth the money. The fact that it is the exact same information makes no difference, as Terry Pratchet would say, we sell the sizzle not the sausage.
I’ve had clients who wouldn’t be happy with the work unless you charged them loads for it. If you gave them a bargain they’d just needlessly hassle you, assuming the work doesn’t meet some ‘standard’. Strange behaviour… a bit like how clients recommend builders who over charge them, regardless of how shoddy the job is, - they can’t admit that they were shafted.
I have to say that this is an obscene proposal.
Bringing in a “negotiator” after a bank has valued a house to be less then what a buyer agreed is just daft. The developer gets more than the property is worth and the “negotiator” gets a fee of what the buyer has “saved”?
This is still feeding into the boom - the banks are getting away with it, people are losing their jobs and the poor B’stard who bought into the boom is still paying over the odds (indirectly) for a property?
Let the courts deal with it - if the developer brings the buyer to court - can’t the buyer bring the bank to court? If they got approval for a mortgage and on that basis signed a contract then have they no rights, if the bank have now revised the loan then who is at fault?
Best practice would be a free service provided by the government to help people instead of yet another “industry” created out of the property boom that has helped to bring this country to it’s knees.
I think that you are proceeding from the assumption that once it goes to the courts and the buyer is shown not to have have funding to complete the contract that it will go away. I think you’re also proceeding from the assumption that this will be a fairly hassle-free process. Now I certainly don’t know the legal ins-and-outs but as AFAIK this is far from being the case. If a buyer has signed a contract its legally binding. If a buyer has signed a contract and his bank has withdrawn the funding then that is the buyers problem rather than the problem of the vendor or the bank (although it’ll likely cause them a lot of grief also - but they aren’t having the screws put to them in quite the same manner as they’re being put to the buyer). The buyer is still legally bound. AFAIK there is no well-established procedure as to what happens to a buyer in this situation. (if anybody wants to jump in here and correct me feel free) Could he be forced to bankruptcy by it? I don’t know but I believe it may be possible. And obviously you don’t want to go bankrupt in this country under our current punitive laws regarding bankruptcy. So if we proceed from the assumption that in this situation the buyer is already FUBARed then trying to re-negotiate with the vendor to work out a solution that will cause less pain for all parties starts to seem like a runner.
I don’t do any conveyancing but am involved in a couple of contractual disputes on both sides of the fence.
The bank and the borrower - The problem here is that all loan offers have a “use by” date, usually six months from the date of the offer. This wasn’t a problem in a period of price rises and in fact I heard of many people getting their property revalued by the time the completion arrived, getting a new loan offer, increasing the mortgage to buy the flash car or whatever.
Nowadays, the guy goes to draw down his loan, the bank says “sorry that offer has expired we are not obliged to give you that amount and in fact your new build is worth a lot less in our opinion. Here, have 50% instead.”
So there is no comeback on the bank, it is a clear term of that offer, even if it is accepted, if the loan isn’t drawn down within 6 months, tough.
The Vendor and the Borrower - There is a binding contract between these two. The borrower can’t close (insufficient loan offer), won’t close (value of property has fallen, they don’t want to buy and they may claim that the property wasn’t properly completed, doesnt comply with planning permission etc etc)
The Vendor wants their money because they know that if they lose this sale not only will they have to sell for less but they may not be able to sell at all. If a buyer pulls out in breach of the contract of sale the Vendor can retain the deposit and if they sell within a year, recoup the additional costs of sale together with and loss on the original sale price.
There are many people walking away and leaving deposits, taking their chances on what the vendor will do. Ultimately the Vendor’s will have to decide whether there is any point in pursuing these people through the courts. 2006’s marks are 2009’s no-marks.
Poeple try to negotiate with vendor’s or their agents directly so I don’t see this as an issue. It’s simply a service that you can get someone else to perform for you at a fee. In fact I know colleagues who would like to be able to send clients to someone like this when they themslves get asked to see if they can get a reduction to which the response is “That’s not our job”
Most of the time the vendor is up against it, contract law is black and white and there is little if no room for sentiment.