Evil, amoral gazunderers

[Rave]

Oh, they're so naughty:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...home-back.html

Sorry, but the language used in the articles absolutely cracks me up!

'We've just had an investment banker who tried a £250,000 trick just to be bloody-minded.

'He demanded 10 per cent off a £2.25 million property. The vendor took the hit. He could afford it.'

Oh, so he saved himself the price of a Zonda, or a holiday home in Cornwall or Spain, just for a laugh did he? What a git.

Gazunderers scored a cheap victory in the West London suburb of Parsons Green, however, where, tired of city life, sisters Lucy and Alexandra Sinton, both in their 20s, decided to sell their flat for £540,000 and move into separate homes in Maidenhead, Berks.

Oh the poor souls. In their 20s, own a flat that, gazundering or not, is worth north of £500k, and still think they're being hard done by?

Here's a wake up call, you spoiled little rich kids: no-one has an ounce of sympathy for you.

Read the whole article, it's genuinely hilarious.

[TheAnimus]

I think your missing an important point.

In a free market economy its important that there is trust on both sides, or bad things happen, more than just a market for lemon bad things...

So you've got people going throu the motions based on someones word alone, then they change there mind.

Gazumping/Gazundering are both problematic, but its only when its the latter people complain about it (and only then Rave can feel schadenfraude!).

The thing is there are plenty of ways around this, when someone makes an offer, its an offer of a contract, not invitation to treat. Subject to the terms been met, then the offer price shouldn't change. This is done in many countries, even comparatively silly ones like south africa to great effect.

Now on a moral ground you should still feel sorry for someone who is been gazundered, because effectivly most people believe a contract has been reached, the property is with drawn from the market (at the moment this is costing money, as most places the properties are stagnent/dropping). So its bad.

Now why is it ok when its someone who's got more money than you? By that logic people who are starving in 3rd world countries should be able to laugh and steal from anyone rich enough to have access to this forum with impunity.

[TooNice]

From the sounds of it, it takes a while for houses to change hands, and I think that's a problem when the market is not stagnant. As the article states, this goes both ways depending on whether it's a buyer or seller market. If it takes even a month for a property to exchange hands, it's long enough for prices to change, and one of the party would be less well off from the time it's agreed. The best solution would be implement a system where the exchange to be done as quickly as possible. The second best solution I can think of, is if they sign a contract on the day of the agreement with certain conditions pre-attached. For instance, that final price may go up or down according to market movement, but only up to a maximum of X%, and only if the transfer takes longer than a certain period (edit: I guess that's similar to what TheAnimus said above which I missed).

[Saracen]

What's hilarious about greedy and manipulative people trying to extort money from others by breaking faith in an agreed deal?

What's hilarious about nasty greedy individuals playing this type of greedy, nasty game and wrecking people's plans?

There needs to be a chance for anyone buying a property to do the due diligence to make sure that the property is what it is claimed, but that the system allows this sort of blatant attempt at extortion is a travesty.

If someone tried that on me, the deal would end right there and then. And that's exactly what I did when they did try it on me, upping the price of the property I was buying after lots of work had been done. I declined to pay up. A few day later, their agent told me they'd decided to proceed at the original price, and I told him they could proceed straight to hell as far as I was concerned because there's no way I'd buy from them after that. Not under any circumstances. If they'll try it once, I'm not about to trust them not to try it again after even more money had been spent and time wasted. Not only that, but I dumped the agent too, because while I have no proof, I have a distinct suspicion it was his idea.

If you agree to buy or sell, then short of significant and unforeseen matters changing that, you ought to hold to your word. Buying and selling houses is hard enough, expensive enough, slow enough and traumatic enough as it is without this sort of bottom-feeding scum trying to use it to extort people like this.

And I certainly see nothing whatever "hilarious" in it.

[IBM]

Rave, think you're way out on this one. Regardless of how well off they are, no-one deserves to be treated like this. Moving house is an exceedingly stressfull experience, and throwing something like this into the mix can make it horrific.

So what if there's a couple in their 20s with a £500k flat? Maybe they've put in 16 hour days six days a week since graduating and have worked exceptionally hard to own what they do. You think they don't have the right to feel hard done by because their 'wealth' is greater than yours? As TheAnimus points out, there must be people in the third world who would feel nothing but contempt everytime you moan about the overinflated price of housing in the UK.

[Whalefish]

I think your missing an important point.
In a free market economy.........

Unfortunately we do not live in a 'free market' economy. The free market is a myth, as witnessed by the ever greater sums handed out to the greedy incompetents responsible for the current economic crisis and the probable recession\depression we are now about to enter.

[iranu]

Why don't the people who are getting gazundered sue the gazunderers for breach of contract? The problem is people are so wrapped up in their own little world of the "chain" that they lose sight of the bigger picture. Just refuse point blank. If everyone did this then the practice would soon stop.

[Saracen]

Why don't the people who are getting gazundered sue the gazunderers for breach of contract? The problem is people are so wrapped up in their own little world of the "chain" that they lose sight of the bigger picture. Just refuse point blank. If everyone did this then the practice would soon stop.

You can't sue for breach of contract, because at the point the guzundering (or gazumping) occurs, there is no contract. It occurs prior to exchange of contract, and until they're exchanged, there's no commitment. That's part of what's wrong (IMHO) with the system.

What we need, in my view, is a system whereby an offer and acceptance binds both parties, subject to satisfactory results from due diligence, and we then need defined ways of resolving DD issues. Some issues will no doubt result in no sale occurring (like a local search revealing a severage works is about to be built at the bottom of the garden), but with searches included in a buyer's pack, that shouldn't be an issue. There also needs to be manoeuvring room is a survey reveals a significant problem, like dry rot or subsidence, which might require the cost of remedial work to be taken into account or even the buyer to withdraw. But, by and large, subject to such issues, both buyer and seller ought to be bound, both to complete and to do so within a reasonable and defined period, once an offer has been made and accepted.

So you can refuse to be blackmailed, but you can't sue. And if you do refuse to be blackmailed, you stand to lose whatever you've invested to that point, which could be quite a lot of money, and you could also lose the chain on the property you're buying if it sets everything back weeks or months. And if the move was, for instance, because your job requires you to move, you may be in a very awkward spot if you don't go forward.

And, of course, whoever guzunders like this not only threatens considerable inconvenience to the person they're buying from, but quite possibly to everyone in the chain, both up and down.

[JPreston]

Were I to be gazundered and not in a position to stick to my guns, I would definitely poo in the cold water storage tank on my way out of the house.

[badass]

I wonder how many of these gazundering victims gazumped people to get into their houses in the first place

TBH I really don't care about these "victims"
Everyone's getting screwed right now over property and it has been entirely predictable for about the pasty 4 years. People simply chose to ignore the eivdence and selevtively hear what they wanted.
And I laughed at this:

And what of their buyer - a young, single man whose behaviour was described as 'deeply unethical' by Roz Boulderstone, an estate agent with Islington-based Thomson Currie, who has spent three fruitless months negotiating the aborted sale?

An estate agent describing someones behaviour as unethical!

Oh and a top tip for anyone considering gazundering.
Get a friend to call in their estate agent and put in a higher offer shortly before exchanging contracts. If they look like they'll go for it, then gazunder them with a guilt free conscience. They completely deserve it.

[M0nkeyb0Y]

IMHO: I think Rave was highlighting the examples cited, and the tone of the article, rather than the practice of breaking a verbal contract (which happened a lot on the way up, just from the other side) as being hilarious...

[Barrichello]

'I deal with the poor souls on the receiving end, and they are often traumatised for years. Gazundering is almost like emotional assault.'

He even mooted the possibility of a website to name and shame the culprits.

And did you kick up such a fuss and create a website for "poor traumatised souls" which were gazumped over the last few years ....No? didn't think so. Now shutup. Thanks.

Yes the law should be changed, so deposits are non refundable etc, but until then we will have the "daily mails" off the world highlighting gazundering as the pure evil of satan, while gazumping "just happens - but hey at least you on the property ladder now" ramping type rhetoric.

[Saracen]

..........

Yes the law should be changed, so deposits are non refundable etc, but until then we will have the "daily mails" off the world highlighting gazundering as the pure evil of satan, while gazumping "just happens - but hey at least you on the property ladder now" ramping type rhetoric.

Well, there's two ways, at least, of looking at that. Firstly, deposits already are non-refundable. The problem is, most deposits only occur after contracts have been exchanged, and if there's going to be any gazumping or gazundering going on, it'll be before then.

Secondly, the reason deposits are paid on exchange is that before then, there's too many things that can cause a sale to fall through, such as searches showing up something, like major development works about to happen, or covenants on the property that you weren't aware of and that aren't acceptable, or like major problems like subsidence showing up when your surveyor does a survey.

Personally, I'm not paying a non-refundable deposit until that sort of possibility is eliminated, because if that kind of thing shows up, I'm not going ti want the property. The HIP goes some way towards mitigating thise concerns, but if I'm buying a house, I'm having my surveyor do a survey, and to my level of detail, and not relying on anything in a HIP.

Besides, surely both parties need to be subject to deposit, because both buyers and sellers can pull out.

There needs to be something that binds parties to an agreement, but it needs to be a binding subject to satisfactory completion of work like surveys and searches, and obviously, for most people, to finance being available. So it would need to be a deposit that was non-refundable provided searches and surveys were satisfactory and that finance wasn't withheld and so on, because unless you've got that type of cover, nobody in their right mind is going to leave anything more than a non-trivial deposit, and if it's trivial, it's not worth doing.

Deposit or not, what we need is for an offer, once accepted, to be binding on both parties, subject to successful completion of the legal checks, etc.

[Rave]

Gazumping/Gazundering are both problematic, but its only when its the latter people complain about it (and only then Rave can feel schadenfraude!).

No, it's only then that the Daily Mail complain about it. And let's face it Alex, schadenfruede absolutely rules.

This is done in many countries, even comparatively silly ones like south africa to great effect.

Yeah, and in silly little countries like Scotland.

Now why is it ok when its someone who's got more money than you? By that logic people who are starving in 3rd world countries should be able to laugh and steal from anyone rich enough to have access to this forum with impunity.

It's O.K. because I've worked pretty hard since I was 20 and still own sod all. I don't particularly care when rich, gullible people get 419d.

What's hilarious about greedy and manipulative people trying to extort money from others by breaking faith in an agreed deal?

What's hilarious about nasty greedy individuals playing this type of greedy, nasty game and wrecking people's plans?

The language used in the article is hilarious. And if you can't see it then I guess you don't share my sense of humour.

If someone tried that on me, the deal would end right there and then. And that's exactly what I did when they did try it on me, upping the price of the property I was buying after lots of work had been done. I declined to pay up. A few day later, their agent told me they'd decided to proceed at the original price, and I told him they could proceed straight to hell as far as I was concerned because there's no way I'd buy from them after that. Not under any circumstances. If they'll try it once, I'm not about to trust them not to try it again after even more money had been spent and time wasted. Not only that, but I dumped the agent too, because while I have no proof, I have a distinct suspicion it was his idea.

Too right, and I would do exactly the same. Still, find me an article in the Mail where a hard working young couple got conned out of their £600k dream home by evil gazumpers and I'll buy you a pint.

And I certainly see nothing whatever "hilarious" in it.

Try reading it again. It's comedy gold.

Rave, think you're way out on this one. Regardless of how well off they are, no-one deserves to be treated like this. Moving house is an exceedingly stressfull experience, and throwing something like this into the mix can make it horrific.

Oh deary me.

So what if there's a couple in their 20s with a £500k flat? Maybe they've put in 16 hour days six days a week since graduating and have worked exceptionally hard to own what they do.

Yes, it's possible.

But in the real world, extremely unlikely. In any case, someone who is prepared to eschew the myraid opportunirites for social and cultural enrichment that are availible in London in favour of working a 96 hour week in persuit of material gains is, IMO, a complete tw*t for whom I cannot feel any sympathy.

You think they don't have the right to feel hard done by because their 'wealth' is greater than yours? As TheAnimus points out, there must be people in the third world who would feel nothing but contempt everytime you moan about the overinflated price of housing in the UK.

Aye, well, until any of us are prepared to sell all of our wordly goods, donate the proceeds to charity and then live in a tent for the rest of our days I think the point is moot is it not?

[Saracen]

.... The language used in the article is hilarious. And if you can't see it then I guess you don't share my sense of humour. .....

It seems not, because I've read it again and still don't see anything even mildly amusing, let alone hilarious.

As for the pint, well thanks, but if I have to read the Mail to qualify, I think I'd rather buy me own.

[Rave]

As for the point, well thanks, but if I have to read the Mail to qualify, I think I'd rather buy me own.

If it's there at all it'll be there on one of their many bile-fuelled websites. I hereby revise my offer: find such an atricle on any News International website or publication and I'll get you drunk at Central London prices.