How to get my private sale listing on realestate.com.au ?

Especially since they bought out property.com.au.

Agree entirely. Kudos to you.

Illegal maybe, dishonest I don't think so.. I find it more dishonest the fact that RE.com is largely owned by a realestate company (Raywhite) whose intentions are to have the monopoly on advertising by not allowing ads of private sales.. in a way forcing people to use an agent and waste thousands in commission, as they see no other option.

rant over :)
 
Thanks for the tip to www.happeningrealestate.com.au
After a friendly call to them today, I was disappointed to find out they can only offer 'marketing services' for QLD properties. My property is in VIC so bad news bears for me.

Red Direct does offer marketing services but to get a package inc re.com.au (you do get other stuff as well) will set me back about $4000

It's not often I get to use the term Oligopoly :p
 
I would be interested in knowing if you or Xenia has sighted one of these
contracts or are macking these judgements sight unseen?

I have not seen a 22a completed by these guys - hence my caution, but I know the form very very well (have filled in hundreds) and can quite comfortably offer the opinion that it goes against the spirit of the legislation and the RE.com contract. I certainly will not call that agent as acting illegal and dishonest...not in a million years, but I would be curious to see the implications for the agent legally if a problem arose during this process.

As for RE.com not allowing private sales - it beggars belief to me that you can call it dishonest - it is a business decision they have made and are sticking by it...it is their business and they can make the decisions. I don't like it one little bit myself either - but dishonesty doesn't come into the equation. they are not hiding the fact or making false inducements etc.

should they allow private sales?? yes I believe they should - but they don't so we have to just deal with it.


Oh, and Ray White last time I looked owned 12.7% of REA (RE.com) - hardly largely owned by RW.
 
I have not seen a 22a completed by these guys - hence my caution, but I know the form very very well (have filled in hundreds) and can quite comfortably offer the opinion that it goes against the spirit of the legislation and the RE.com contract. I certainly will not call that agent as acting illegal and dishonest...not in a million years, but I would be curious to see the implications for the agent legally if a problem arose during this process.

As for RE.com not allowing private sales - it beggars belief to me that you can call it dishonest - it is a business decision they have made and are sticking by it...it is their business and they can make the decisions. I don't like it one little bit myself either - but dishonesty doesn't come into the equation. they are not hiding the fact or making false inducements etc.

should they allow private sales?? yes I believe they should - but they don't so we have to just deal with it.


Oh, and Ray White last time I looked owned 12.7% of REA (RE.com) - hardly largely owned by RW.

Hi UC

Not suggesting you were calling the company dishonest or that it was acting illegally but you also said you were backing Xenia.

Please reread my message, I never suggested Re.com was dishonest.

Cheers

Pete
 
Heya Pete!!

mate no dramas, I realise you weren't having a chop...sorry I should've broken my responses up a bit - i was answering a couple of posts in one hit...for the re.com remark about dishonesty I was referring to vbplease's comments and the inaccuracies in his/her perspective on its ownership-

I find it more dishonest the fact that RE.com is largely owned by a realestate company (Raywhite) whose intentions are to have the monopoly on advertising by not allowing ads of private sales

I understand and respect your comments completely.

Yes i did and do back Xenia with regards to her comment on the RE.com policies and her interpretation of the rules from RE.com's perspective...if an agency is to agree to the rules set by the service provider and then skirts them for financial gain - i guess it is dishonest in some respect. I am happy to call it something else if there is a better word though!! :)


otherwise, it's all good mate!!

Cheers
UC:D
 
I dont know why, but I find this one of the best threads I've read on here in a while.
Almost seems that its a question which everyones asked but nobodys come up with an answer (until now - to some extent)?
 
Finally an agent with some creativity. I was personally referred to an agent so thought what the heck; showed him my property and explained my intention to sell privately but would pay comms if he had a buyer. Anyway, he agreed to halve his commission, sign a non-exclusive open contract but/and at his expense have the exclusive rights to market the property on re.com.au I was impressed with the lateral thinking.
 
As for RE.com not allowing private sales...it is a business decision they have made and are sticking by it...it is their business and they can make the decisions...

100% correct
After all, it takes a lot of money and smart business thinking to set up a site that's overwhelmingly used by just about every Australian RE buyer. If private sellers want to take advantage of such a HUGE audience, then they're going to have to choose to pay for it (via an agent whom they're paying a selling commission and have a valid sales agreement with) or advertise elsewhere, if that's what needs to happen.

No private sales site has yet been successful enough here in Oz to capture a large enough audience to make every potential buyer use it. There's about 8 minor players but even their sites are lacklustre and clunky to use.
What we need is someone with a LOT OF STARTUP CASH and determination to get an equal private sales site up and running. Trouble is, you've got to pay for advertising to gain exposure (and I can't see realestate.com allowing ads on their site somehow for this) give it sufficient time to get known and run the risk of failure, like many private selling sites that have gone before.
 
Finally an agent with some creativity. I was personally referred to an agent so thought what the heck; showed him my property and explained my intention to sell privately but would pay comms if he had a buyer. Anyway, he agreed to halve his commission, sign a non-exclusive open contract but/and at his expense have the exclusive rights to market the property on re.com.au I was impressed with the lateral thinking.


any agent thats halves their commission sounds like a desperate agent to me
 
any agent thats halves their commission sounds like a desperate agent to me

I don't think so. Consider it a fee for service, they won't have to provide much service; the photos are done, collateral is done, paperwork is done through my solicitor, valuation is done, price is set, property is ready for showing. So their service is simply putting a listing up on one website and handling the leads/inspections. Sounds pretty cruisey to me for a $10,000 commission.

Anyway, it's neither here nor there because I've chosen to avoid re.com.au for the first six weeks of the campaign.

I'll post up the results over the coming months.
 
Why have you made this decision?

Two reasons;
First I won't be persuaded that $4000 to get on re.com.au is good value or necessary to sell my property until other (less expensive) marketing efforts prove ineffective (domain.com.au, newspaper, letter drop flyers, word of mouth)

But the other reason is that we're about to spend much of Feb overseas so I don't want to pull the re.com.au marketing trigger until I'm back to manage the leads.
 
Thanks for the backup urban cowboy

Yes I have seen an agreement between a licensed real estate agency and realestate.com.au, I have one!

RE.com is owned by a real estate agency (raywhite) who write their contracts with agencies in favour of real estate agents. Whether it is right or wrong that is their terms and if you agree to sign a contract you agree with their terms.

You don't have to list anything on that internet site, there are others, if you don't agree with the morale or the fairness then avoid the site! Or buy it, make raywhite an offer and re-write the contracts in a way that you think it is fair! perhaps only listing private sales!!!

Anyone could have bought realestate.com.au and it could have been bought by a private listing advocate who wrote the contracts in favour of private sales but it didn't happen that way. It was bought and owned by ray white and they have written the contracts the way they want. For people that don't like it then make them an offer to buy it from them and change the contracts! That's proactive, whinging is reactive!

Agreeing on terms by signing a contract then turning around and breaching that contract in a very covert way is not only dishonest it is vicitim!

we see tenants trashing houses because they signed a lease, couldn't afford to pay the rent then blame the landlords for renting to them. How dare someone have a house and I have to rent from them!! Trashing a house is breaching a contract and a way of "getting back" at what some people believe is unfair! All above is very similar!
 
Whether it is right or wrong that is their terms and if you agree to sign a contract you agree with their terms. ... Agreeing on terms by signing a contract then turning around and breaching that contract in a very covert way is not only dishonest it is vicitim!
Absolutely. When you sign a contract, you abide by the terms. It sounds as though the agency mentioned abides by the agreement (in legal terms, if not in spirit), but the idea of "slipping" a RE agent some cash to list your property on realestate.com.au is unethical, as it's asking the agent to breach their contract. The agent would be incredibly foolish to agree to do it, too - risking their access to what I imagine is virtually an essential avenue for advertising real estate, for the sake of a few hundred bucks.
 
Thanks for the backup urban cowboy

Yes I have seen an agreement between a licensed real estate agency and realestate.com.au, I have one!

RE.com is owned by a real estate agency (raywhite) who write their contracts with agencies in favour of real estate agents. Whether it is right or wrong that is their terms and if you agree to sign a contract you agree with their terms.

You don't have to list anything on that internet site, there are others, if you don't agree with the morale or the fairness then avoid the site! Or buy it, make raywhite an offer and re-write the contracts in a way that you think it is fair! perhaps only listing private sales!!!

Anyone could have bought realestate.com.au and it could have been bought by a private listing advocate who wrote the contracts in favour of private sales but it didn't happen that way. It was bought and owned by ray white and they have written the contracts the way they want. For people that don't like it then make them an offer to buy it from them and change the contracts! That's proactive, whinging is reactive!

Agreeing on terms by signing a contract then turning around and breaching that contract in a very covert way is not only dishonest it is vicitim!

we see tenants trashing houses because they signed a lease, couldn't afford to pay the rent then blame the landlords for renting to them. How dare someone have a house and I have to rent from them!! Trashing a house is breaching a contract and a way of "getting back" at what some people believe is unfair! All above is very similar!


Hi Xenia

Perhaps you should re read my post the question wasn't do you have a contract but does that contract require the sales agreement between the
agency and vendor to be a standard REI contract?

You claimed the agencies actions were illegal and dishonest, have you
seen their contracts and had legal advice to support this or are you only
being reactive and whinging as you brought up this claim, I'm only asking
questions about this to learn more.

To help you understand how us plebs get confused by the experts in your field, in this thread we have Urban Cowboy telling us:

"Oh, and Ray White last time I looked owned 12.7% of REA (RE.com) - hardly largely owned by RW."

And you telling us:

"RE.com is owned by a real estate agency (raywhite) who write their contracts with agencies in favour of real estate agents. ":confused:

When you enforce contracts on behalf of your clients do you work on what
you think is fair or what the legal obligations are, because fairness is often in the eye of the beholder?

Pete
 
Turk,

No they do not have to be standard REI contracts. There needs to be a contract in place for the listing agent to be acting on behalf of the vendor for either selling or managing the property.

Not all agents use REI contracts some have their own based on real estate laws.
 
Absolutely. When you sign a contract, you abide by the terms. It sounds as though the agency mentioned abides by the agreement (in legal terms, if not in spirit), but the idea of "slipping" a RE agent some cash to list your property on realestate.com.au is unethical, as it's asking the agent to breach their contract. The agent would be incredibly foolish to agree to do it, too - risking their access to what I imagine is virtually an essential avenue for advertising real estate, for the sake of a few hundred bucks.

thanks ozperp, exactly was I was trying to say!
 
thanks ozperp, exactly was I was trying to say!


Xenia

Now I'm confused once again, the way I read ozperps post she thinks the agency may be acting legally but possibly not within the spirit of the contract.

Where as you claimed they were acting illegally and dishonestly, an entirely different viewpoint and I still wonder what proof you had to make such a
claim?

Still confused over your claim that RW owns Re.com.

Cheers

Pete

Ozperp please correct me if I've misread your post
 
Two reasons;
First I won't be persuaded that $4000 to get on re.com.au is good value or necessary to sell my property until other (less expensive) marketing efforts prove ineffective (domain.com.au, newspaper, letter drop flyers, word of mouth)

But the other reason is that we're about to spend much of Feb overseas so I don't want to pull the re.com.au marketing trigger until I'm back to manage the leads.

It costs 4k??!!!!
 
Now I'm confused once again, the way I read ozperps post she thinks the agency may be acting legally but possibly not within the spirit of the contract.

Where as you claimed they were acting illegally and dishonestly, an entirely different viewpoint and I still wonder what proof you had to make such a
claim?
I think there are two different scenarios being covered here, Pete.

1) An agent such as the one mentioned - Happening - is appointed as an agent to sell the property, but on a fee for service basis and with only limited services provided, eg their agency is limited only to marketing the property. As the marketing agent, they list the property on realestate.com.au. This arrangement has been constructed, I imagine, such that it doesn't violate realestate.com.au's rules, even though I'm sure it would be contrary to realestate.com.au's intentions. ;) I don't believe anybody's labelling this as illegal.

2) An agent, who is NOT in any way acting for the vendor, lists a property that is for PRIVATE sale on realestate.com.au in exchange for cash. ie they're simply profiting from their ability to list on realestate.com.au, but have no involvement in the transaction. If you read Xenia's post carefully, you'll see she's only labelling this behaviour as illegal and dishonest. And from what I understand of these contracts, I think that's a fair cop. :)
 
Back
Top