Unhappy buyer's agent client

[Fourducks]

I would like to hear from anyone who has had a bad experience with a property purchased through a Buyer's Agent.

Have you taken legal action or had any luck with resolving the issues with the Buyer's Agent? Any advice would be very welcome. Please post your stories here or private message me. Thank you.

 

[luckyone]

Have you had a bad experience?

 

[Sunfish]

I would like to hear from anyone who has had a bad experience with a property purchased through a Buyer's Agent.

Have you taken legal action or had any luck with resolving the issues with the Buyer's Agent? Any advice would be very welcome. Please post your stories here or private message me. Thank you.

No.........

 

[Fourducks]

I have but I am not willing to divulge details online at this stage. I would like to hear from others who may be in the same position as me.

 

[travelbug]

Just a little bit of info would be nice.
Did they not find you anything you were interested in?
or did you buy something you didn't think was good?

Buyers agent will generally show you a few properties. You choose which one you want, if any.

 

[Belbo]

One of the more curious posts of late.

Witness! Irregular poster; hints of dark deeds; private messages welcomed.

What is this about? Secrecy; subterfuge, subversion?

Who is Fourducks, and why such a cryptic name?

Qu'importe. Bon chance mon ami!

 

[Rolf Latham]

I would like to hear from anyone who has had a bad experience with a property purchased through a Buyer's Agent.

Have you taken legal action or had any luck with resolving the issues with the Buyer's Agent? Any advice would be very welcome. Please post your stories here or private message me. Thank you.

Hi FD

I would think a definition of "bad experience" is worth fleshing out here.

I have around 5 clients a month that purchase stock via a BA.

Mostly they are very happy with the outcome, but as always there are purchases that havent turned out as expected with long vacancies, or enviro issues etc

ta
rolf

 

[Fourducks]

The property is probably worth $100,000 less than I paid as the BA did not do proper due diligence. Add in the buyer's agent fee, stamp duty, agents fee to sell the property plus negative gearing losses over a couple of years and this adds up to some serious $$$$$$$

 

[Rolf Latham]

The property is probably worth $100,000 less than I paid as the BA did not do proper due diligence. Add in the buyer's agent fee, stamp duty, agents fee to sell the property plus negative gearing losses over a couple of years and this adds up to some serious $$$$$$$

ouch 100 k is a lot of money

Was the property new ?

How was it financed ?

ta

rolf

 

[travelbug]

The property is probably worth $100,000 less than I paid as the BA did not do proper due diligence. Add in the buyer's agent fee, stamp duty, agents fee to sell the property plus negative gearing losses over a couple of years and this adds up to some serious $$$$$$$

I feel your pain. Must be very frustrating.
What was your brief? I'm assuming negative geared with high capital growth?
So it's worth $100K less now than when you bought it a couple of years ago? Why did it go down? Was it foreseeable? When one buys from a buyers agent does that mean you do no due diligence yourself?

Difficult to comment with only half the information.

 

[Scott No Mates]

Did you get a valuation prior to purchase? Check out comparable sales etc?

Was the property bought at the peak of the cycle?

Remember higher returns = higher risk?

 

[matto_]

Was the prop inter state, or in an area you were un familiar with?

 

[Macca]

Did the property cost $300k or $3M ? There are many places that have fallen $100k in value.

To be fair, you have asked have others had bad experiences and my answer is "no" but without knowing any of your details it is all to vague.

Most people are more likely to respond if you give details of your situation in general terms, so that they can make a comparison.

 

[Fourducks]

Basically the property cost less then $500000 and was supposed to be subdivisible but is not.

 

[The Y-man]

Basically the property cost less then $500000 and was supposed to be subdivisible but is not.

Ok - now we're getting places. Was the fact that it had to be sub-divisible part of the brief to the BA? Or just that it was "sub-divisble STCA" (as they would say in Victoria)

The Y-man

 

[Fourducks]

Yes, I was specifically told the property could be sub divided/developed - I would not have bought it if it could not be.

 

[evand]

What does your contract/agreement with said agent say regarding performance? Everything else is fluff.

 

[Player]

Yes, I was specifically told the property could be sub divided/developed - I would not have bought it if it could not be.

You are in a frustrating situation and responsibility for signing contracts would rest with you.

Did you check said advice with council?
Did you check or were you given any comparable sales of similar properties to assist with your due diligence and to establish that the BA knew what they were doing for you or had your best interests in mind?
Was your brief in writing that property must be able to be carved up?
Were you specifically told (verbally) or in writing/email or both?
And......finally, here's the conspiracist in me, bearing in mind the disparity in price/value, were they selling one of their (own or relatives) assets to you?

If you have something in writing that constituted the BA fulfilling their brief and they didn't.....perhaps you may have recourse. My comment is not advice merely trying to think out loud with some logic.

I feel for you and whilst I don't use Buyer's Advocates (I enjoy the hunt myself and like to be in total control), they have a purpose for time poor, non-local or novice investor purchasers. End of the day though, the buck stops with you to check that their leg work and offerings are reasonable in price for what you're getting.

 

[Player]

The property is probably worth $100,000 less than I paid as the BA did not do proper due diligence. Add in the buyer's agent fee, stamp duty, agents fee to sell the property plus negative gearing losses over a couple of years and this adds up to some serious $$$$$$$

Actually, hold on!

In addition to my post above, I now realise that you're telling us it's worth 20 % less than two years ago............welcome to the correction that some areas have seen.

Is it on the Gold Coast or S/EQld?

I was under the (initial) impression that the disparity was that you overpaid by 20 % (in addition to the inability to subdivide), not that in two years it has slid in value. If it's the latter, then with all due respect, what has that got to do with the BA?

Can you clarify so more relevant input will be offered to you.

 

[Fourducks]

Nothing to do with values having fallen. Quite simply the block which was bought at land value or thereabouts is worth $100 000 less because it can't be subdivided. That applies today and also applied when I purchased it. It simply was not worth the asking price because of this and a BA who was doing their job properly should have picked up on this - that was their brief.