The banks involvement in house sales.

We went ‘sale agreed’ last Friday on a property owned by the banks. I’m saying ‘sale agreed’ loosely as the EA had to submit our offer to the bank. However he was 99.9% sure there would be no issues as it was 10k over asking price with very little interest from other bidders. Furthermore our lower offer was accepted until someone bid 1k up and we outbid them. EA was happy to close sale. However, on Wednesday we get told that the bank hasn’t accepted our offer OR rejected it. EA said ten houses were submitted to the bank over the weekend, seven accepted that were 20-30k over asking price and one was 100k over. The ones refused were under asking, at asking price and then ours.
Apparently the bank are holding out for more. After a month of viewings and two bidders one who only went 1k up, we went 5k and then 4k up… They want more. Why have an asking price? Yes I understand if there’s substantial interest or if it was four months ago when the market wasn’t as alive as now that this could change things.
So now, we’ve had the valuation done on the house as the EA arranged the apt when the valuer contacted him as he was “very confident” the offer would be accepted. Our solicitor and surveyor are ready to go and we are in limbo?! We were told Wednesday that the EA was going to have a con call with the bank but that didn’t happen. Then yesterday he said the bank are receiving too many houses and are now going to meet every Friday to make decisions so we will know on Tuesday, of the outcome.
Anyone else experience this? And we wonder why the monster of Celtic tiger past has returned with a vengeance. TIA for any responses

Had a bank refuse what I thought was a fair offer for something. They stalled it for about two months after the vendor accepted and eventually a better bid came in. So I guess they were right, they could get more. Only thing I’d do differently if I was doing it again is put a time limit on my bid.

the answer is step away from purchasing a property when it’s a sellers market.

any idea what bank it was?

In a rising market I think they would be quite happy to lose a good bid. What have they got to lose? They are trying to recover as much money as possible, and a few months from now they might get another 10%.

That’s exactly what is happening. They will ride the market until it looks like the easy price increases are finished and then it will actually be for sale. At the moment the banks are acting like ebay, except they are not saying when the auction finishes. Similarly they have a “buy it now” option where you can pay a good whack over what you might expect to secure the item immediately.

There is no incentive for them to sell at market value today, when the market value is rising. Therefore they won’t, but they will keep the property “on the market” to keep up appearances, or on the offchance someone makes a bid they can’t refuse.

Its not just the banks, NAMA are engaged in the exact same strategy. This needs to made abundantly clear, it appears to media are complicit by willfully ignoring this game-plan story.

Sorry all I didn’t realise anyone had replied. The bank is AIB and the receiver is BNP paribas. We’ve offered an extra 5k as the valuer said that that was what the house was worth at a max and “at a push”. He said our present offer was a very substantial decent bid. There were six viewings and five bids, three bids were ours and they were the large bids. The other two bidders just bid 1k then walked away. There can’t be much difference in demand in the space of a month?? We’ve everything ready to go and estate agent knows this as he arranged the valuer to come before getting an answer from the bank as he was that confident of a positive outcome. So I feel the EA needs to try push it over the line. We told him if it goes back on market we will walk away which we will. Therefore putting them back to the beginning with viewings and offers. But it’s a bank, they’ve no emotional attachment to the house. They just see money!!! It’s awful being messed around though, that’s the hard thing to take. It’s happened all the way through with this house. We’ll give them until Tuesday and if nothing we will walk. Thanks for the replies :slight_smile:

A friends’ rental is being repossessed and they want to approach the bank about buying it.

Any chance, and if so, what’s the best way to proceed? 3 bed terrace in D8, current market value c. 250k.

I’d say they will be told to join the scrum!

Sounds to me like the banks are actively driving this bubble rather than passively benefiting from it.

My god… Didn’t see this one coming… So it turns out all the stalling this week on our ‘accepted bid’ was as a result of the greedy investor who ‘owned’ the property. He wants the house back and said he would have the money in two weeks. The bank have given him two weeks and if he doesn’t have it, it’s ours!! They can F-O. I think it’s disgraceful that someone who defaulted on their mortgage for over a yr, had one of his three properties repossessed (this house) is now allowed get it back so can continue making rent from it. Sickening.

I know what I would do. As a matter of principle, if the new bidder is the former defaulter, I would withdraw my bid and re offer at the lower original asking price only when the bank confirms it will not entertain a bid from the defaulter. You are being played. Seems the defaulter is cooperating with the bank to drive up your price to bring down his outstanding liability to the bank.

If he owes 200 on a mortgage and you are offering 180, he will be left with a liability of 20 to the bank. They may or may not write it off. If through the above posited behavior you raise your offer to 185 then you can see clearly who is benefitting. And it ain’t you.

I would keep all the records you can- this would be a useful case for media examination.

Is this property on the NCR ?

Op sorry to hear of all the hassle, ultimately the bank is going to try and recoup the most money they can from the property. Buying a house is one of the most stressful things in life so hang in their op, but no point in getting emotional about it. Regardless of who the previous owner of the house whether its an investor or homeowner, whats alarming is the length of time it takes for a house to get repossessed and get sold on. If there are over 30, 000 people who are in mortgage arrears of two years then its going to take a long time before they trickle on to the market, if they ever do come on the market.

I worked alongside a recovery department in a bank once and their approach is simple when there is a default. Get as much money for the property as possible. Right or wrong doesn’t come into it.

What you bid will have done is given the bank a number to present to the owner with which to do a deal at. Ie, so you offered 100, then the bank would listen to an offer of 101 from the owner.

The fact that the owner is willing to offer a 101 tells me that the owner see’s value in the property at 101, perhaps because the outstanding loan is much higher, say 150. And because the owner has defaulted, the bank could reclaim the property even if the owner gives them the 150, simply because of the default or breach in contract.

So if I was you, I would up your offer and put a realistic deadline on the offer. This has to be realistic from the banks point of view too, ie you can say 1 day, as by the time the decision makers find out it will be too late. It must be maybe two days after their next meeting. And even that may be too soon. Also, the bank will be worried about execution risk, so you have to show how serious you are, and that you won’t be pulling out of the process.

If you decide that 100 is your final offer, and you don’t have an interest in the house beyond that and are truly sickened by the owners behaviour, then raise your offer to a level of that the owner could never see value in, but still believable from the banks point of view. That way the bank would agree to your offer, and thus reject the owners offer. Even if the owner ups their offer, you know that you have taken more money out of the owners pocket because of your actions. And if its a bailed out bank, you know that you are doing a duty to taxpayers, either here or abroad.

If you go down option B, you need to make it look like you will go through with the sale, until you are somewhat sure that the bank has stopped communications with the owner and then you drag your heels. At this stage you probably have heard a list of excuses, use the same excuses back.

Can anyone now answer me this?
So I live very close by the house in question and today whilst walking my dogs I see a big sign on the hall door of the house. I go look and it’s says
“Apologies but the viewing tonight is cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances regards Karl”.
Now I’m baffled!!! My immediate thought is this previous owner is trying to sell the house himself so he can try pay off the money owed? Then I google and start thinking no he is already putting it up for rent? So I google letting sites and lone behold there it is in all its glory now up for rent. Even though we were told Friday at 5.30pm the previous owner has two wks to get money owed or its ours!!! Now it’s up for rent still with the for sale sign from another estate agent in the garden. WTF??!!!

Maybe it’s time to ring Joe Duffy :smiley: seriously he gives all those people looking for debt forgiveness and can’t pay their mortgage enough bloody air time !

A bank’s preference for an unsustainable borrowing is voluntary surrender i.e. you hand the property to the bank and let them sell it, this option is much preferred to voluntary sale where the borrower tries to sell it themselves. The general perception with borrowers is that the bank will accept an offer quicker and for less, sticking them with a higher residual balance whereas the banks generally feel a borrower will delay and drag their feet when they control the sale. Unfortunately it sometimes takes this stage in the game of brinksmanship for the borrower to make previously withheld financial information available when they realise the bank is actually really going to take or sell the property after years of impotent and idle threats.

One important message from this incident – there are lots of greedy and dishonest people out there, and at the moment a good percentage of them are in negative equity on BTL investments gone bad. As this type of person starts to slowly get cornered by the banks they are willing to fight dirty and dishonestly at every opportunity. The smart ones know that it is costless – no one would dare push back since the political classes, media and central bank regulators (along with other regulator and quasi-regulatory bodies like FLAC) are massively on their side as “homeowners” who need protection from the banks. So no matter how much they cheat and tell lies there are no consequences for them. Important to keep that in mind in these situations. The banks are just patsies whose main political instinct is to bend over and wince.