North-based estate agents Hunters have linked with former HIP provider the Live Organisation to introduce a ‘day one’ conveyancing service.
The new Hunters Faster Legal Service comes at no additional cost to sellers.
Familiar-sounding features include instructing a solicitor at the point of marketing, with a pre-sale pack produced.
The pack contains fixtures and fittings information forms, a draft contract, and official copies of title and associated information. For leasehold properties, leasehold information is included.
Searches are ordered as soon as the sale is agreed, as part of the service.
Hunters boss Kevin Hollinrake said: “Sellers using the service have their properties marked with the ‘Faster Legals’ badge, which means they are more attractive to buyers who largely want the purchase to be as quick and stress-free as possible.
“This partnership with the Live Organisation allows us to offer an exclusive conveyancing service to our customers, which not only simplifies the legal process but also reduces the time taken to buy and move in.”
%20A%20property%20tale%20for%20our%20times.png)
Comments
My understanding is that there are no searches ordered for this very reason. And from what I have seen of it, it is 100% No Sale No Fee...
Is this not just an agent trying anything to make a few quid extra? As many properties are selling very slowly the searches will be out of date before the property is sold. Who would pay for them if the property withdraws from the market, the vendor? Is it still 'NO SALE NO FEE' or will the vendor be hit with a bill? If they are hit with a bill is it an instruction winner or loser???
Hunters 'personal agents' were a great idea in concept but how many of them are still trading??
Yorkshire agent - I believe the Hunters panel of solictors are local, High Street firms chosen by Hunters as businesses they want to work with.
That's the way LO run their model - yes there is a volume operation if agents choose it - but LO are sensible enough to understand that some agents want to retain their local relationships for probate referrals/local knowledge etc and so offer both options and not force people down the centralised route - it's not the MHM or Countrywide model where everything is processed in large factory operations
...I think they're on to something with this - and good on them for trying. I agree with AceofSpades and PeeBee - they will market this very effectively - and gain market share whilst others are still talking about HIPs, which were abolished almost a year ago now?!...
tya: I am sincerely happy to hear that we are still on typing terms! ;0) IF you revisited the thread we had our spatlet on (now cionsigned to Page 6 of the Archives and receding fast...), you will have, I hope, noted my subsequent posts. I'd hoped you would have responded - but c'est la vie as they say in Gwent...
Okay - I note and, to a degree, agree with your thoughts. My understanding, however, of the LO is that they allow Agents to pick and choose which Conveyancer/Solicitor (subject to the agreement of the said parties...) - is this incorrect as you understand it?
Of course there are 'Profit Partnerships' involved - what a lovely turn of phrase... But whether it be a bottle of plonk for the Neg: a meal out or a seat in the Company Box at Elland Road, this sort of 'Profit Partnership' is going on wholesale. 'Money' does not have to change hands to be a 'bung'.
THIS type of inducement, however, is accountable - and, obviously, legally acceptable.
IF it encompasses local firms with specific local knowledge - all-important I believe in the conveyancing process; allows the customer to benefit from an additional sales widget that otherwise they would not have, then is it such a bad thing?
Even if, along the way, a couple of people make a couple of quid out of the deal...?
I have no gain to make; nor axe to grind, by asking these questions. I am simply interested, and hopefully promoting further debate, by the way.
I look forward to your - and hopefully other - responses.
Pee Bee, of course we are still speaking - estate agents cannot afford to bare grudges, I am just not a big fan of 'factory conveyancing' as it is very expensive for the customer and the service is usually shocking, I used to use such a service and get handsomely paid for it but the complaints from MY vendors made it not worth it, i now happily recommend good regional firms - (and no money changes hands)
the yorkshire agent: Hello, Sir! Long time no see... I'm still waiting for an answer to whether we are still "speaking"? ;0)
So - at the risk of being a kn*b again, I would suggest that YOU are the best person to speak out against said company. You obviously cover the same patch (or at least a part of it...); it is somewhat evident from the tone of your post that they affect your business - it may even be that they are one of the Agents that we had our previous 'disagreement' about, that charge their customers too much.
But, setting that aside, do you see this as an USP; an instruction-getter; an ACTUAL benefit to the seller - or simply a new cog in the money-making machine that is Hunters, as you suggest?
Could, or would, it work in YOUR Agency if it were offered universally?
Would you WANT it?
Someone pays of course and in this clever marketing ploy the desperate solicitors on Lives panel will be expected to do all that work and hope the property actually sells, so they get paid.
Will create loads of stagnant files that clog up their system, making them even more inefficient.
its just another way for Hunters to get their vendors to buy into their expensive factory run conveyancing.
My argument the whole time was that HIPs should exist, but be optional - that way the providers had to earn their crust and the consumer had a choice of how ueful they really were. In instances, providing a HIP to the buyer was a useful move - but definitely not the case for the vast majoirty of transactions.
It does speed things up that little bit more and the USP is the key here. Are you, as a buyer, going to be drawn to a 'faster legals' badge on a listing? Absolutely.
It's no decision maker, but certainly a key factor for a substantial sector of buyers that will add to the appeal of Hunters' catalogue.
Good to see people trying different things.
Nothing new here.
Chancellors introduced this concept long before HIPs were even introduced. It was called 'Move First' or First Move' something like that.
They don't appear to offer it anymore mind you, so maybe HIPs tarnished the concept??
Anna: you may well be right - but the people at Hunters are no numpties when it comes to Agency and marketing.
They will use this as a USP - and use it very effectively, mark my words.
Good luck, do you not remember how popular HIPs were and they were compulsory.
This is Hunters dream of taking over the world, part 2.
Someone will pay...