Second-steppers are being caught in a trap, says the Mail, because moving to a larger home can double their mortgage.
Yesterday’s article helpfully gives a number of definitive tips to help them make the move.
For example: “Cut unnecessary spending. If you don’t use your gym membership, stop paying for it.”
Not to mention: “Sell your current home via an online estate agent to cut costs. They include My Online Estate Agent, Purplebricks, HouseSimple and eMoov.
“Otherwise, instruct an estate agent who beats the typical commission rate of 2%.”
It seems to have become almost inevitable to find something like this in most newspapers, most weeks.
There is nothing wrong with online agents and there is a place for them in the market for those who want to use them.
But since it is all about choice, it would be nice to see a more informed choice being presented to the consumer.
As for the 2% “typical” commission, as Stephen Hayter, of the country’s biggest conveyancer, has written here in EYE, the average is actually 1.3%.
Comments (12)
Why does anyone take the Daily Mail seriously? This is typical of their sloppy journalism.
It looks like the just the same advice as you would have received in a nice communist country. Don’t spend money on food or petrol. Grown your own and cycle everywhere. Save a few pennies and lose thousands – what a great idea!!
Worst advice they could be given. They will be more cash strapped when the online agent massively undersells their property.
We have to take join them on the battlefield. It’s all well and good us chewing the fat on here but if we want the general public to read a balance to the bias by the main stream media it is necessary to challenge their stories publicly.
As expected the story was distributed via Twitter so it seems fair game to reply to the advice and claims on there.
“We have to take join them on the battlefield” Sorry completely disagree.
That’s exactly what they want professional agents to do…..it means that the industry takes them seriously enough to want to “do battle”. The public simply don’t want their property transactions dealt with by online agents…….that is proved by the woeful growth rates of about 0.2% market share per year……which is nothing to worry about. Even a large % those who do use end up using a professional full service agent when they don’t sell through the online companies.
wilko – I’m not sure if you (or I for that matter) are misinterpreting Robert.
My reading of it RM is referring to the press – certain sections of which have clearly taken sides with the non-High Street element of Estate Agency. What isn’t clear is why – unless you dig around – a bit like they do on Time Team.
You know – good old Phil Harding and his happy band of archaeologists dig up fragments of seemingly nothing that gets them all excited, then the power of technology and good old deduction fills in the holes and joins the pieces together to make a pot.
Only then can you see what the pot has been used to cook, and why they got so animated about it.
Try it. There are plenty of fragments there – most of them on the surface…
For sure the onliners want the publicity, the trick is to give them as much as they crave only not the kind they want.
It is perfectly possible to control false advertising by turning the tables on the advertiser, the media and the regulation system they know how to play so well. We don’t need to go belly to belly in a public brawl, simply point out the reciprocal of the argument. You have done that well in your post but it will only be seen by people who are largely of your opinion on Eye
By joining the battlefield all I am suggesting is keeping an eye on the tweets and re-tweets and offer a balancing and correction opinion.
Reinforcing what the public know and understand in the face of PR and journalistic bias/ agenda to the contrary only needs to be dignified and honest to be affective.
I dragged Peebee onto Twitter, a place he hates. I think after a few months he is seeing how the same opinions expressed on social media rather than in the trade press can have a positive outcome in controlling undesirable false promotion.
We need a voice Robert!
Somebody with media connections and a calm. cool, collective manner and deals in fact not opinion. Somebody that has the industries best interests at heart and will not descend this into a mud flinging match.
When can you get started and promote our industry Robert! 🙂
I already started Smile, I am currently working on the 8000+ promotions of online agents by “This is money.
Super news, let battle commence!
All good points here but if the press have taken sides with non high street agents, it isn’t working……The reason it isn’t working is because they don’t offer the service that the public actually wants, and until they do, they will keep on failing.
There are many online agencies that have folded due to lack of instructions and you just have to look at reviews to find that customers who have used them have often experienced a bad service.
It’s not taking off……..even after 15 or so.
Why get drawn into a comparison argument when they are not the same offerings? It would surely just make the public think that we have to justify our service against online agents……which we don’t.
Things have changed though Wilko there is a structure to some online agencies that are directly connected to large media corporations.
It possibly isn’t apparent to you but the sheer volume of pro online agency journalism is starting to accelerate and whether through collusion or sheer laziness respected independent journalists are failing to mention family or financial connection in contravention of IPSO regulation. The number of supporting comments by institutions connected in some way to other corporation or companies beggars belief to the point where dignified silence is no longer an option.