16th Mar 2024 (9 weeks ago)
In my personal opinion very unethical and potentially breached estate agent’s code of conduct.
Code of Practice 4A "When you give advice to someone selling their property, any figure you advise, either as a recommended asking price or as a possible selling price must be given in good faith and must reflect available information about the property and current market conditions and must be supported by comparable evidence. You must never deliberately misrepresent the market value of a property"
Code 1E "You should provide a service to both buyers and sellers
consistent with fairness, integrity and best practice; and you
should not seek business by methods that are oppressive or
involve dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation. You must
avoid any course of action that can be construed as aggressive
behaviour (*) or harassment (*)"
I was shown a property as a first-time buyer where I was informed by the agents the seller would not accept anything less than £125,000 despite being advertised as “Offers above £100,000”. Halifax came out to undertake a valuation of the property and stated it was only worth £115,000 and Natwest came back with a valuation of £110,000. My counteroffer of £112,500 was rejected and the sale subsequently fell through 2 months into the conveyancing process. Connells should have valued property and realised that the asking price by the seller was way above the valuation that any high street bank would value the property at and therefore it was entirely unethical to allow a first-time buyer unknowingly to enter the sale process knowing it was more than likely that later down the conveyancing process someone with a mortgage was never going to be successful and should have, at the very least inform the buyer of this fact.
This was in my opinion incompetence at best and deception at worst. Connells in my opinion knew that the property was over valued and attempted to take advantage of a first-time buyer and were so complicit in the seller’s greed/or delusional belief of the property’s value, they were happy to take a first-time buyer all the way to the end if they could get away with it. Fortunately for myself Connells went too far and the banks refused the mortgage.
Please do your homework, make sure you get a valuation as well as a survey, and do not accept estate agents at their word. In my own personal opinion I do not believe this was a genuine mistake. Connells knew the property was over-valued and were quite happy to allow me to pay for it, potentially putting me in negative equity later down the line. The property remains on Rightmove and the Connells website back on sale and advertised as previously “Offers above £100,000” despite being told this morning that they seller was likely going to let it again when just yesterday it was marked as subject to contract. It seems that Connells might be trying to do the same with another person and sell a property that they now know has been valued by two high street banks at £110,000 and £115,000. They seem to want to get themselves into trouble. I am considering taking the matter further. I very much doubt they will show people around the property and say that two high street banks have refused a mortgage based on the sellers requirement of £125,000.
After Lucy's response on 04/02/24:
Thank you for your comments Lucy as I might well contact you, however I am sure it would be of great reassurance to the community of Blandford if you could assure them publicly by replying to me again, that anyone viewing this property from now on will be informed:
A. Halifax have valued the property at 115,000 and Natwest at 110,000.
B. Anyone with a mortgage will be required as a result to put down an extra 10-15000 extra
Are you able to that for us Lucy? I think you should if you are complying with the code of ethics but some how not convinced you will
I will be in touch more formally at some point in the future.
Edited. 19 Feb/16March. Why now advertised offers over 130,000? valued 15 - 20,000 less. R U telling buyers? Reported 2 Action Fraud.... Read more