Auctioneers promoting Seller's Legal Pack to speed up conveyancing

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,803

Sellers Legal Pack | IPAV

Click here for Sellers Legal Pack Brochure or download below. Click here or download below to see Senator Aidan Davitt's Sellers Legal Pack speach to the Senead Click Sunday Independent Article - New law proposes to reduce gazumping VIDEO: Click here to view recording of Marc MacSharry...
www.ipav.ie

A good idea and Mark McSharry TD has moved a Bill in the Dáil on the issue.

Brendan
 
On what data or research are they basing the claimed benefits I wonder?
  • Consumers will be fully informed and will be better protected
  • Reduce the number of property sales which fall through due to gazumping or gazundering
  • Reduce potential liability for the Vendor
  • It will make the conveyancing process more efficient
  • Streamline the process to align with public and online property auctions
  • It will allow filtering of properties prior to sale to confirm saleability
  • It will speed up conveyancing time by up to 50%
  • It is expected the SLP will add no further cost to the general expenses associated with the sales process
 
Last edited:
They exist in the UK, so it has probably helped there.

It would mean that sellers would not put houses on the market until they are actually ready to sell. Often buyers find that there is a legal problem with title, and the sale is delayed.

One downside, even if it a downside, that I can see at this stage, is that it might discourage some people from selling. But it will probably just discourage those who aren't really committed to selling.

Another would be that if the surveyor's report or the legal title is wrong, what happens then?


Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
A good idea and Mark McSharry TD has moved a Bill in the Dáil on the issue
Click to expand...
Absolutely a good idea. The fact you can put an 'unsellable' property on the market here is frustrating. There are still some issues to be teased out, like when there are issues with title, but at least they're available for buyers solicitors to see upfront rather than weeks / months down the line.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
It would mean that sellers would not put houses on the market until they are actually ready to sell. Often buyers find that there is a legal problem with title, and the sale is delayed.
Click to expand...
RedOnion said:
The fact you can put an 'unsellable' property on the market here is frustrating.
Click to expand...
If this is the key problem intended to be tackled here then that was not at all clear from the IPAV briefing document.
 
I put a house on the market recently as a "subject to probate sale". House went sale agreed quite quickly and the prospective buyer knew they would have to wait until probate was done (process was well under way when I put it on the market). overall, that took around an additional 2 months to close but the EA had made it quite clear to prospective buyers.

If I had to wait for probate to be done, I would have lost that 2 month period whilst waiting on probate to close before I could have put the house on the market.

I get the logic of the bill, but it's going to have a negative impact as well. I'll also be very curious to see what it will do to EA and solicitors prices
 
I presume that the Bill would allow for "subject to Probate" sales.

I have not read the Bill and would not know enough to assess it. But the idea is right. And it can be amended to account for the different scenarios.

Brendan
 
RedOnion said:
Absolutely a good idea. The fact you can put an 'unsellable' property on the market here is frustrating.
Click to expand...
I think the principle is a good one.

However, it’s hard not to be a tiny bit cynical. Estate agents are already obliged by legislation only to give provide valuations which are “reasonable” which you would think should mean them having to form an opinion that are no insurmountable issues surrounding the sale of the property.

In my experience, and I doubt I am an outlier, estate agents in practice to not take up too much time investigating issues around probate, title, planning permission, et cetera. They are more interested in getting the house on the market before their competitor.

In my view, and I’m not the expert, it could be more useful to put clear obligations to ensure saleability on estate agents rather than sellers. Most people sell a house once or twice in their life and are pretty ignorant of the whole process, while estate agents are doing it every day of the week.
 
It would be great if this could be done before going on the market where it is less time dependent and done once.
Instead of multiple buyers potentially having to go through it as sale falls through...
Or a buyer under time pressure for closing in a chain etc being held up by stuff that could and should have been sorted before going to market.
 
I understand your cynicism. But just a little challenge. What you are suggesting is that the estate agent should be obliged to ensure that the seller has 'saleable title' before they advertise the property to sell it? Which is what they are trying to legislate for. Or are you suggesting something different here, and that the estate agent themselves take on the responsibility for conveyancing before marketing the property?

If this is done properly, there is no additional cost in selling a property, just bringing forward steps that must be completed anyhow for a sale to complete. So the only additional costs are for those properties that don't find a buyer.

One positive is that this protects the seller as well. The current process is that their solicitor will generally only look at title once the property is sale agreed, so the seller might not be aware of title issues for months.

I'm no skin in the game by the way. I've gone sale agreed on 3 properties in my life, all of which had issues which only became apparent after my offer was accepted, and took time to resolve. I had to withdraw from 1 purchase where the seller cannot have not known it would be impossible to complete - that property is still on the market 5 years later, although at a higher price.
 
Last edited:
Most of them I've met are nether legal nor planning experts, and certainly nowhere near competent enough to assess potential structural issues. It makes perfect sense for all these boxes to be ticked in advance, but without someone competent making these assessments purchasers would be advised to continue to seek independent advice.
 
RedOnion said:
What you are suggesting is that the estate agent should be obliged to ensure that the seller has 'saleable title' before they advertise the property to sell it? Which is what they are trying to legislate for.
Click to expand...
Maybe not as much as that. But something along the lines of an estate agent as a regulated entity being obliged to have enough evidence that there are no critical issues that would make a sale impossible. I had a quick look at the legislation and, as drafted, it would put the burden on the vendor to produce a long list of documents at their own expense. I think even a good-faith vendor would struggle to produce what is suggested.

Leo said:
Most of them I've met are nether legal nor planning experts, and certainly nowhere near competent enough to assess potential structural issues.
Click to expand...
I am not suggesting that they are nor should they be. And I am not so naive as to believe that certain issues will only come to light right at the point of sale as well. My suggestion is that it makes more sense to place the burden directly on the regulated entities and indirectly on the sellers.
 
Dr Strangelove said:
I think even a good-faith vendor would struggle to produce what is suggested.
Click to expand...
It boils down to the seller engaging their solicitor earlier. There is nothing new in the list of documents; they'll all be needed during the conveyancing process.

Dr Strangelove said:
obliged to have enough evidence that there are no critical issues that would make a sale impossible
Click to expand...
So the agent should investigate title, judgements, form an opinion on planning and building regulations...?
 
Dr Strangelove said:
My suggestion is that it makes more sense to place the burden directly on the regulated entities and indirectly on the sellers.
Click to expand...
I don't see any advantage there, just less choice for consumers who would no longer be able to use their own solicitor, engineer, etc., and agents covering the risk through increased fees. Then you also have many people who choose not to use the services of an agent when selling, forcing them to do so would impose an even more significant increase in costs on them.
 
Leo said:
just less choice for consumers who would no longer be able to use their own solicitor, engineer, etc.,
Click to expand...
All I am suggesting is that regulated property industry professionals should have an obligation to satisfy themselves that there is no material impediment to sale.

You could set this bar relatively low, but a low bar is better than no bar at all.

By analogy we don’t expect estate agents to be experts in financial crime, but there are still minimum anti-money laundering obligations that they have to comply with.
 
Dr Strangelove said:
All I am suggesting is that regulated property industry professionals should have an obligation to satisfy themselves that there is no material impediment to sale.
Click to expand...
I understand the suggestion, but for them to do so would require replicating the roles performed by solicitors, surveyors, and engineers today. Either they acquire all the necessary skills (a massive undertaking requiring years of retraining for all agents, or they outsource that assessment to other qualified professionals with the added costs that will entail.

Dr Strangelove said:
By analogy we don’t expect estate agents to be experts in financial crime, but there are still minimum anti-money laundering obligations that they have to comply with.
Click to expand...
I've bought and sold property and not once had an estate agent perform any form of AML checking.
 
Dr Strangelove said:
All I am suggesting is that regulated property industry professionals should have an obligation to satisfy themselves that there is no material impediment to sale.

You could set this bar relatively low, but a low bar is better than no bar at all.
Click to expand...
Not if it drives up costs.

The country is already both choking with and broke from bureaucracy.
 
T McGibney said:
Not if it drives up costs.

The country is already both choking with and broke from bureaucracy.
Click to expand...
As things stand, a sale could fall through because the seller hasn't sorted X or Y or because of a material issue that standard conveyancing would discover. Something almost any buyer and certainly one looking for a mortgage looks for. This can happen after the potential buyer has incurred outlay on surveys or lost time on bidding for other potential houses.

The sale falls through.

There is nothing right now to stop the seller re-listing the property only for someone else to go through the same cycle and find out about the material issue after spending X and losing Y in time.

That is driving up costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register