Conditional selling likely to rise as transaction levels drop

Conditional selling is a scourge. However, we must be careful not to mislabel things. There's nothing wrong with an estate agent or a member of their staff taking the necessary steps to check the validity of a prospective purchaser's offer. It's required under the Property Ombudsman code of conduct that "at the time that an offer has been made and is being considered by the seller, you must take reasonable steps to find out from the buyer the source and availability of their funds for buying the property and pass this information to the seller. Such information will include whether the buyer needs to sell a property, requires a mortgage, claims to be a cash buyer or any combination of these". Estate agents are also compelled to undertake anti-money-laundering checks or risk having their collars felt. There's also nothing wrong with estate agents offering ancillary services. However, problems arise when they overstep that mark, and it becomes a condition of purchase that a buyer has to do XYZ to secure the property. The biggest problem is a lack of enforcement and punishment by The Property Ombudsman and the Financial Conduct Authority. This malpractice will continue until there is a much bigger stick, especially when the carrots are so valuable. All we can do as brokers is call it out when it happens and begin to name and shame so consumers can make an informed choice on who they do business with.

I come across conditional selling at least once a month. The most notable examples are clients being told they must be "qualified" by the estate agency's in-house adviser even though they have spoken to myself and have proof of funding already. Unfortunately, nothing is done to combat the problem. Fortunately I can advise clients on how to deal with these situations but many buyers will feel that unless they comply, they will lose out on the properties they want. There needs to be closer monitoring of estate agency practices and perhaps more mystery shopping. Unfortunately, there is not much information available in the public domain on this issue, which I think would help combat the problem.

The problem seems to be getting worse, but this was inevitable as the property market starts to slow and transactions drop off. The pressure from management in corporate estate agents must be coming down thick and fast and every penny counts, hook or by crook. Not enough has been done to stamp out this practice and until it is, it will continue and the only person who loses out is the client. It makes a mockery of the house buying process and most agents who are doing this have a terrible proposition and inflated protection premiums.

As long as there are no consequences, some unscrupulous agents and builders will keep bullying customers into using their in-house, generally overpriced services. It's an open secret that everyone in the industry knows about but the problem is getting a customer to go on record that they have been a victim when they just don't want to lose the house so I would love to see the various regulators actually do some mystery shopping, collate evidence, and punish some pretty endemic, illegal behaviours. Without punishment it will continue un-checked.

While all estate agents are not guilty, a lot are. In my experience, the big corporate firms are the biggest culprits. Forcing clients to see their in-house broker or use their in-house solicitor can can be detrimental to a client, but is also an illegal practice. Estate agents have a very good knack at pretending to be regulated and qualified, when in fact, many are neither. If Man City played Man United, I wouldn't want a Man United fan refereeing the match. How on earth can they be impartial? That's the same as in-house brokers. As somebody who worked for one of the largest estate agency groups in the UK, I can confirm the pressure I received from branch managers to disclose affordability was huge, and lesser brokers would have buckled under the pressure. Whilst it is ok to say that estate agents have an obligation to verify offers and anti-money laundering laws, if a client has already seen a broker, this has already been done, so they are simply creating more work and making things more stressful for the client. I own an estate agent so I can speak with both caps on. I am happy to confirm that my agency puts no client in front of our own brokers that do not want to be sat in front of them. The brokers that allow this to happen also need to be held accountable. Even though it would affect my own estate agency business, I believe no buyer should be able to use an in-house broker as it's impossible to be managed managed by the FCA. How can anyone in these circumstances say they truly have the client's best interest at heart? Dealing with estate agents who uses these underhand tactics is a royal pain in the derriere.