Could this be the most price amended house currently still for sale?
It’s a pleasant chalet bungalow in Lanark, currently on with Purplebricks at offers over £300,000.
This is the cheapest it has been since its first listing in March last year at £360,000.
The following month it was reduced to £350,000, and in June, the price was cut again to £340,000.
Then last September it went up £20,000 to £360,000, followed by two rapid price reductions taking it down to £325,000, before – you’ve guessed it – another rise, and another reduction to take it to the end of the year.
Strangely, the price was unaltered this year until August when it shot up £25,000, only to have it reduced twice more this month in the space of just over a week.
https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/43142159
Comments (24)
Reviewing Mr Lawson’s posts I think the conclusion is that he is happy to argue the laws, regulations, rules, ethics and decency should apply to a whole industry but as their main public advocate he believes Purplebricks and all those who chose to use pushing the boundaries of law breaking to commercial advantage should be exempt and free of criticism
That confirms the boast made to a networking breakfast where two of Woodford’s spivs explained their contempt for laws and rules that hinder investments.
My viewpoint; there are plenty of laws and torts that are not adequately policed that doesn’t mean exploiting them is an option.
Unlikely, considering the time between price changes.
Isn’t this just a tactic to flag out Rightmove/Zoopla price reduction emails to potential buyers?
Yup.
I am quite confident that someone can put forward at least one property that makes my above “tenser” (conker-speak) offering pale into insignificance…
…are YOU that “someone”, dear EYE Reader/Contributor?
#To_You (credit: Barry Chuckle)
The 89 million pound price reduction is from a poster on here?
In 2015 James Munro of NTSEAT made a commitment to tackle breaches of CPR and BPR and issued guidance how agents could stay within the laws that govern all those trading as or promoting themselves as estate agents.
Consumer protection regulations are designed to protect consumers, Business protection regs are designed to make sure the playing field is level so all businesses can compete fairly and dishonest businesses are not given advantage over those who stick to the rules.
These unexplained price manipulations (pricejuggling) were confirmed to me by Rob Brown (solicitor to NTSEAT) as a breach of Consumer protection regulations. Prices are bounced up and down in order to trigger an email alert to applicants registered with the portals, more than 2% and out goes the alert.
The portals know this is going on, NTSEAT the redress schemes and Propertymark know this is going on and have been shown the extent of it but despite a whole bunch of commitment, rhetoric and PR NOTHING has been done to curb it.
Price juggling isn’t confined to Purplebricks and the other passive intermediary listing firms it is widespread throughout the industry.
I don’t have time to post all the examples I have. One firm has 900 properties price juggled 4 times or more, their record for a park home in Bishops Stortford is 19. Another firm property has had its price pulled up and down like a *****’s drawers 52 times
>Prices are bounced up and down in order to trigger an email alert to applicants registered with the portals, more than 2% and out goes the alert.
That of course is speculation. If Trading Standards prosecute somebody then they have to prove the motive beyond reasonable doubt.
The fact that homeowners are in control of price increases and drops with PB also makes it very difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt what the motive of the Agent is. You would have to say a reasonable explanation would be that they want to allow owners to change prices in accordance with market conditions.
Perhaps there was a marketing break before each price increase? There certainly seems to be an extended period prior to any increases. It would certainly be a legitimate marketing strategy to take your property off the market if it had failed to sell, then bring it back in front of a new audience months later. Who knows there may be several new buyers out there after a few months off the market. Nothing better than interest from multiple potential buyers to obtain the best price.
So ultimately Robert, you are looking at price changes and guessing the motive but that’s all it is a guess.
>These unexplained price manipulations (pricejuggling) were confirmed to me by Rob Brown (solicitor to NTSEAT) as a breach of Consumer protection regulations.
Well even if you did understand him correctly, it is only his opinion. These things are very rarely black and white and each case would be judged on its own merits.
Just when I thought you couldn’t appear a bigger idiot, you go and prove me wrong. Jimmy_88 seems to have come to this conclusion too.
#not now Terry!
“So ultimately Robert, you are looking at price changes and guessing the motive but that’s all it is a guess.”
An educated guess. VERY EDUCATED.
“You would have to say a reasonable explanation would be that they want to allow owners to change prices in accordance with market conditions.”
So… TEN changes in market conditions within a period of 18 months that would lead a professional Estate Agent to recommend price amendments to their vendor in order to stay with/ahead of the market – and THREE of those were upward changes – that’s what you are saying, ducky, is it not?
“The fact that homeowners are in control of price increases and drops with PB also makes it very difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt what the motive of the Agent is.”
The Agent is ultimately responsible for the actions of the homeowner as they are the Agent, bound by the Laws of Agency and Business. But in respect of “the motive of the Agent”…
“…when I was discussing marketing with the LPE. He was telling me that every time the property decreased in price on RM by 2% an alert was sent out to users.”
Hmmm… wonder who stated that to me in March 2017… and what the motive of the Agent was to drop that little nugget of information into the conversation?
I chuffin’ wonder.
#duckshoot
>The Agent is ultimately responsible for the actions of the homeowner as they are the Agent, bound by the Laws of Agency and Business. But in respect of “the motive of the Agent”…
That’s your opinion. A very naive one if you ask me. Do you have any case law to substantiate it? No, I thought not.
>So… TEN changes in market conditions within a period of 18 months that would lead a professional Estate Agent to recommend price amendments to their vendor in order to stay with/ahead of the market – and THREE of those were upward changes – that’s what you are saying, ducky, is it not?
No, it wasn’t what I was saying. I am saying that the facility to allow the homeowner to make price changes is there for them to change prices depending on the market. This makes prosecution difficult which has to be beyond reasonable doubt. Something you don’t seem to grasp.
You didn’t comment on…
Perhaps there was a marketing break before each price increase? There certainly seems to be an extended period prior to any increases. It would certainly be a legitimate marketing strategy to take your property off the market if it had failed to sell, then bring it back in front of a new audience months later. Who knows there may be several new buyers out there after a few months off the market. Nothing better than interest from multiple potential buyers to obtain the best price.
You can’t prosecute people on guesswork. All a defendant has to do is convince the Judge there is reasonable doubt and some of you think just showing the judge price movement would be enough. Very naive.
Duty to obey instructions- an agent must act on the instructions of the principal in so far as they are lawful and reasonable. You are wrong there is case law.
Breaching CPR is not lawful. If you want to take up why constantly changing the asking price of a property is a breach of CPR take it up with NTSEAT.
As you’re determined to make this a stag rut of opinion (where you are never wrong) how about I post some of the better examples for you to comment on and explain away. Before I do so please get sanction from the legal and marketing teams they’re happy for us to debate this obvious difference of opinion on what’s lawful and what’s not
>Duty to obey instructions- an agent must act on the instructions of the principal in so far as they are lawful and reasonable. You are wrong there is case law.
Case law as to why the Agent is liable to actions by the homeowner?
You’re getting it confused. The point is not whether the Agent is following instructions it is whether they are liable for actions by the homeowner.
If a homeowner changes the price is it the same as the Agent changing the price? That, I’m sure has not been ruled on by any court, never mind one with binding authority on lower courts.
>changing the asking price of a property is a breach of CPR take it up with NTSEAT.
Trading Standards have lost CPR cases. See Beresford Adams v Wrexham Trading Standards. Like i say, in the unlikely event you have understood what you have been told by the solicitor at NTSEAT, this is just an opinion. It is only through the courts that common law evolves.
Please clarify who is changing the price of these properties, the agent or the vendor. The assumption is that the vendors require an agent to have their properties on Rightmove. If you are suggesting that’s not the case you are saying Purplebrick is not a proper estate agent as is claimed in the advert.
As it stands price juggling is viewed as a breach of CPR by the solicitor to NTSEAT and that will only be clarified by a court case. Best everyone gets on with it! That will clarify if an agent is vicariously liable for the actions of a vendor breaking the law for them.
>Please clarify who is changing the price of these properties
I don’t think it’s clear. New territory, one for the courts to decide probably.
>As it stands price juggling is viewed as a breach of CPR by the solicitor to NTSEAT
Well that’s how you’ve interpreted what they have said. I’m sceptical whether you’ve understood. I imagine the intention behind the changes in price is highly relevant, This seems to be the opinion of most commentators when it comes to portaljuggling anyway. See http://www.nationaltradingstandards.uk/news/estate-agents-warned-over-portal-juggling/
e.g. “Estate agents who deliberately mislead”
“You didn’t comment on…”
Didn’t see the need to. Still don’t – but being the friendly kind of chap I am…
“Perhaps there was a marketing break before each price increase?”
There wasn’t.
“It would certainly be a legitimate marketing strategy to take your property off the market if it had failed to sell, then bring it back in front of a new audience months later.”
“Legitimate”? That’s highly debatable. And naive.
It is A “marketing strategy”, ducky. Not a good one by any stretch of the imagination. Not one that I or, as is clearly evidenced, many of my peers would recommend or adopt for my customers’ homes.
“Who knows there may be several new buyers out there after a few months off the market.”
Who knows… there might have been one – THE “one” (‘cos most of Agents’ sales complete on the first attempt, ducky – don’t need a second or third shot at it…) – turn up during one of the 99 days** between DElisting and RElisting – or #juggling as we prefer to refer to it as… – and you’ve lost your golden opportunity.
**Being the period blurted out in haste by Rightmove in response to industry-wide condemnation of the practice of #portaljuggling (as first exposed here on EYE in 2015) and directives from NTSEAT, TPO and other bodies – but not in accordance with relevant Legislation that specifies a minimum SIX MONTHS between listing periods.
>but not in accordance with relevant Legislation that specifies a minimum SIX MONTHS between listing periods.
What legislation? Don’t you mean your interpretation of the legislation? Or your interpretation of an opinion by Trading Standards?
I note you’ve previously stated “The actual length of time that a property was (historically) required to have been off the market before ANY Agent (whether it was they who was previously marketing it or not) can legally describe it as “New to the market” is actually six months.”
Your justification for that statement was http://www.nationaltradingstandards.uk/news/estate-agents-warned-over-portal-juggling/ which of course doesn’t refer to 6 months, and is full of rather vague statements with most commentators suggesting the intention/motive is paramount e.g. “deliberately mislead” & “attempt by agents to mislead” & “seeks to misinform”. NTSEAT don’t seem sure on whether there would be enforcement even “could lead to enforcement action” and other commentators are not exactly confident of what the outcome would be in the Courts if there was an attempt at enforcement “could ultimately be deemed illegal”. Not even prepared to say in their opinion it would be deemed illegal!
I know we’re not talking about portaljuggling here but I suspect you are getting things confused.
I know you think everything is black and white but proving these things is far from easy as was demonstrated in the case Beresford Adams v Wrexham Trading Standards.
If you have any case law to support your theory I’m all ears.
Look, ducky
If you want to satisfy your ‘case law’ fetish then crack on, sunshine – it takes all sorts…
…just don’t expect me to pull your rubber glove on for you.
Go fish.
Cyberduck46 – educate me. Whats happening here?
https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/43966311
27th Mar 2018 £395,000 Price reduced by £250,000
14th Jan 2018 £645,000 Price increased by £150,000
27th Aug 2017 £495,000 Price reduced by £220,000
26th May 2017 £715,000 First listed
…and here cyberduck46
https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/46267097
8th May 2018 £285,000 Price increased by £20,000
8th May 2018 £265,000 Price reduced by £235,000
17th Jan 2018 £500,000
…and this one
https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/44755276
19th Sep 2018 £149,999 Price increased by £10,000
19th Sep 2018 £139,999 Price increased by £4,999
18th Sep 2018 £135,000
…and while on the subject of this one, ducky…
Please feel free to explain why the “First listed” date on the Zoopla entry is 18 September, yet here’s the same property on Rightmove:
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-67574233.html
displaying an “Added on Rightmove” date of 19 July...
…and could you possibly explain why the date for the listing, according to RightmovePlus is stated as 17 August 2017?
‘cos we’re all ears for your answers, ducky
This just indicates to every potential buyer ‘beware’.
There is nothing more off putting than total confusion, and buyers will be able to see the history of price changes for themselves.