Showing posts with label consumer protection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consumer protection. Show all posts

Sunday, 21 February 2016

Out on the market

A write-up on my search for a dwelling, briefly signalled in October

If you are not under pressure to move out from where you currently reside, have specific budget constraint and defined expectations towards location, layout and age of your property, at the stage of seeking you can easily filter out those which meet the pre-defined criteria.

The most popular place where one can find property advertisements are numerous Internet sites which, thanks to presence of filters, facilitate the look-out. The conclusions one can reach upon frequent searching is that:
1) most properties have been out for sale for several months, if not years,
2) most ads are put up by estate agents.

The first observation bears out the secondary market for properties in Warsaw has been in a standstill for a few years now. It is not the case no one is willing to buy flats (though buyers recently tilt towards brand-new dwellings) or no one can get a loan to buy a property. The fault, I guess, is with vendors unwilling to get down to earth in terms of their price expectations. Nearly any flat (except for those with dreadful drawbacks) would sell, provided the price is reasonable and it has to noted if a seller really wants to dispose of a property, they will nail down the deal within a month or two. In practice turnover of flats has been very low. Week after week you see the same flats put up for sale.

The second observation leads to my precious piece of advice: avoid agents like a plague. I do not want to denigrate the profession, since many professional estate agents do their job very well, but the majority of them work hard to earn this profession the label of overpaid spongers. This has been confirmed by my two high school friends who had episodes of being agents in golden years of 2007-2008. As they have told me, the job is lousy and produces little value added. Unless you have no time to search for a property and have no notion on legal and technical intricacies related to the purchase and the very property, paying up to 3% plus VAT for an intermediary who will match you with a seller is probably the biggest rip-off I have seen in life (except for those seen at work as a bank employee of course)!

In general agents:
- put up outdates advertisements to attract clients and insist you sightsee another flat,
- put up advertisements without seller’s knowledge and after you call them, they need to call the seller or another agent to arrange sightseeing,
- often cannot answer basic questions regarding the property (rent charges and what is included in the basic rent, history of the flat, whether it is mortgaged, or not, etc.).
The only good thing I can tell about them is that they are punctual and rather polite (though some astonishingly reticent).

Big thanks should go to Mr Gowin who in his de-regulation craze freed up access to the profession. While I watched Mr Gowin opening the way for so-called ‘restricted’ professions to laymen, I thought he was cracking down on cliques of rent-seeking cronies and breaking their monopoly. Then came the day when I found an ad of a flat I was interested in, put up by an estate agent (one of the biggest brokers in Warsaw) who had exclusivity agreement for carrying through the sale process. I thought it was clear if the agent was remunerated by the vendor, he would be representing his interest, while I would be representing myself. The next day I pulled up to the site, met the agent, but outside the building before we went inside to see the flat, the agent (sly guy aged around 20, as later evidenced by his LinkedIn profile) asked my to sign an agreement with the agency he represented. I resisted his hastening remarks and read the whole paper, which included the obligation to pay the agent 2.9% + VAT of the purchase price if I bought the specific property. I kindly asked why should I pay the agent anything if I found the flat on my own, contacted the agent as the representative of the seller. The lad replied it had been the business model of the agency for 20 years and it had functioned well. Slightly worked-up, I reformulated the question. I asked what service would I get from the agency in return for 2.9% plus VAT, since in the normal market if you pay, you get a service in return and emphasised I would handle all formalities on my side on my own. His response was that I was paying him for creating the opportunity to buy that very flat. I told him he had been employed by the vendor to find the buyer and should be loyal to him and if he did not show me the flat, he would be acting to the detriment of the seller, because he was not maximising efforts to sell the flat and asked whether he would show me the flat, if I did not agree to pay the commission. After a firm refusal, more than annoyed, I walked away…

Then I carried out my own investigation. The estate agency said it was their policy indeed and as long as the seller agreed for charging both parties the commission, they can do that. Checked it out online – it any party agrees on a conflict of interest, charging both parties 3% plus VAT of transaction price is permissible! Jaw drops open. And then I found this firm statement of Estate Agents’ and Managers' Federation according to which what the agent was trying to coerce me to was unlawful – if the agent has the exclusivity from a vendor to run the property sale process, they had no right to condition showing the property upon signing the agency agreement by a potential buyer. If they do so, they violate the duty of care and loyalty to their principal (seller). I got in touch with the Federation and was informed on my rights and how I can file a complaint on an agent and what steps they can take. The only problem that in fact since the agent did not hold a licence (after Mr Gowin’s deregulation he does not need to), he is not subject to any code of ethics, code of conduct, integrity principles or whatever rules the Federation sets out to licensed estate agents and I could do nothing.

I checked then the acts (ustawy) and decrees (rozporządzenia) governing property management and learnt all the points setting out requirements towards estate agents have been revoked. I felt duped by the Polish state and stripped of protection of unethical practices of cunning bastards.

My piece of advise – for most properties if you search carefully, Google will find you (sometimes cached) an advertisement of a specific property placed by its owner directly. Sometimes after a few weeks of futile search, owners fall back on estate agencies and give them a free rein without exclusivity. Given limited value added of an agent, it does pay off to take the trouble and contact the vendor directly! If the vendor insist you get in touch with the agent, make sure you will not pay the commission!

Back to my efforts – all people telling me finding the right flat was a matter of months rather than days or weeks were right.

In October I found one dwelling which met my expectations. Not ideal in terms of layout (bedrooms not much smaller than living room, while I wanted the two rooms dissimilar in area), but passing muster, in good location, with price slightly above my budget. The seller (found after a half-an-hour intense search in an archived ad) had been trying to sell the flat for nine months. The flat needed a refurbishment (wall-painting and some repairs) and from the legal side needed conversion from co-operative right of ownership to regular ownership (entailing notary’s costs), so I wanted to beat down the price (already decreased by 15% from the first asking price) by PLN 20,000 more. It turned out another buyer was willing to pay the seller without haggling.

In November and December the search was put on hold, since after I had been relocated to another department at work and assigned new duties and clients, I worked up 70 hours a week, including weekends, to get to grips with the mess I had been entrusted. This took me two months during which I had little time and energy to pursue the search.

In 2016, seeing supply of flats recently put up for sale is short, I decided to screen out the primary market I had been sceptical about. What I learnt is a bit staggering:
- times of buying a hole in the ground are back – supply of completed flats is very short and their prices are exorbitant and actually despite not being under huge pressure, I do not want to wait two years before I move in,
- the best locations have been developed some time ago and locations offered now are either lousy or pricey,
- layouts of most flats are a crying shame. Architects excel in squeezing possibly many rooms into limited space, design long halls, kitchens combined with living rooms without windows and possibility to separate them, the other menace are rooms shaped other than rectangle, moreover developers are unwilling to rearrange flats as expected by a buyer, even if they are still under construction,
- openness of developers for meaningful price negotiations is close to zero, because sales are record-high, this is also why developers do not care much about potential customers (one of them told me if I did not like their offer, several other clients were waiting to buy the same flat, so why wasting their time).

I called my friend who is in charge of residential property financing department at one of the biggest banks and sees the market from the inside and he confirmed by observations. Developers have no problems finding buyers for their horrible products, however from his insight into gaps between asking prices and purchase prices, the room for negotiations exists.

Another piece of advice – before you talk to a property developer, familiarise with the right the ustawa deweloperska gives you as a customer. Knowledge of legal and technical rudiments (and even more) is a must if you go out into secondary market as well.

Then I returned to the secondary market, went around a few flats. None of them was ideal, I seriously consider buying one of them, but I need to count up the costs of all-out refurbishment (as my father rightly tells me, it may be more costly than finishing a flat from a developer, since the cost of removing bathroom fittings, kitchen furniture, wardrobe, floors, tiles, etc. needs to be added and God knows what is hidden beneath it) and I need to try how long the commute will take me from there (Włochy).

Visiting other people’s flats (usually uninhabited) is also a psychological experience – sellers attitude vary from total indifference (guy has been attempting to sell an empty flat for a year but has not taken the trouble not only to tidy it up but also to hide any defect – good for me) to aggressive hard-selling and tale-telling on alleged advantages of a flat (playing me a fool).

The bottom line is simple – it is better to spend a few thousand more and be satisfied with the purchase (as you will stick with it for a while) instead of saving a few thousand and regretting the decision, the same goes about waiting for a good opportunity – one month or two will not save you. Less serious and easier to unwind decision to change job two years ago involved six months of turning down offers I found unsatisfactory and when the position lived up to my expectations crossed my way, I took the decision swiftly and after nearly two years with hindsight I see this was that very opportunity I was meant to grab.

Sunday, 20 February 2011

The art of manipulation honed to the limits

The contract with our current Internet provider (Play Online) expires soon. Their service generally sucks. Connection speeds are comparable to those standard in Belarus and my shoddy modem stops trasferring data whenever it feels like. Wrangling with customer service of P4 is a big ordeal, so the decision to give up on them was an easy one. We don't know yet what company will our new provider be (only mobile internet is comes into play), but we have already taken steps to break up with Play Online. We send them a letter in which we noticed them we wanted to terminate the contract on its expiration date. In response we received a missive in an electronic form, scan of its print below. Watch out for the underlined words and phrases.


Now a small exercice in translation. A word which crops up four times in the missive, not accidentally, is , it doesn't have a short equivalent in English, so I decided to do it into Eglish as 'as much as'. Slightly stilted, if you have better suggestions, please let me know.

Ref. no. 2723****

Dear Sir,

We confirm the reception of your letter dated 2 February 2011 regarding the cancellation of services provided by P4 sp. z o.o.

On this occasion we are glad to thank Sir for the current cooperation and by the same token for placing trust in our company.

Especially for Sir we prepared an offer "RePlay Online Great with a discount" without a modem. As part of this bargain we offer you a discount of 10 PLN for the whole contractual period what adds up to a saving of as much as 120 PLN. The monthly allowance under this contract is as much as 5 gigabytes and the contract length is only 12 months.

There is also a possibility to prolong the contract for 18 months, under a modem plan. Under "RePlay Online for Christmas" special offer, the monthly charge for first four months will amount to mere 1 PLN. The monthly allowance under this plan is as much as 5 gigabytes. After the discount period ends, the monthly charge will be mere 45 PLN.

We will be pleased, if you get in touch with our Customer Service at the number *500 (call only from  mobiles in Play) in order to learn about the details of the offer and to place an order. The order will be effected by courrier free of charge.

If your decision is upheld, we inform that the Contract for the number +48791****** will be terminated on 9 April 2011, after the cancellation period, defined in paragraph 14 point 5 of P4 Terms of Telecommunication Services for Subscribers, expires. The current Play Online number will be transferred to Play Online pre-paid service, in which the service account may be topped up only when necessary. When the new plan is activated, Sir will receive as much as 1 gigabyte of data transfer to be used up within 30 days.

Yours sincerely,

Anna M****

Now some essential remarks.

1. Our letter was dated 26 January 2011. Why the hell did they change the date? Never mind that.

2. Especially for Sir (specjalnie dla Pana) is nothing but a barefaced lie. The same plan is offered to any customer who wishes to prolong their contract.

3. The contract set out 1 April 2011 as expiration date, so why did they discretionally prolong it by eight days? But to make up for this they gave 1 gigabyte as a farewell gift, so this can be forgiven.

Now let's get to the core of what I'm drivng at.
The word (as much as) was used four times.
The word tylko (only) was used once.
The word zaledwie (mere(ly)) was used two times.

Back in August 2007 I did my first job as telemarketer for another mobile operator. I went through some trainings and realised the importance of these seemingly unimportant words. A human beign feels a natural need to make a good deal. By using those words hard-sellers persuade their clients victims they do so, although the deal in fact is not a big bargain. Believe us, you'll pay so little and we'll give you so much. How can you turn down such a great offer?

That job was a big nuisance, but with hindsight proved to be a very valuable experience. Now I'm very sensitive to all kinds of manipulations I am exposed to and can make wiser and well-thought-out consumer decisions and I don't fall for all the twaddle I'm being said. And after all I sometimes sympathise with those poor people who sometimes call me to sell a product or a service and try to make me believe I can strike a great deal.

Thursday, 17 December 2009

Uplifting, devastating

Today I’ll let you take in a blend of praising, grumbling and dissomething.

I was delighted to read the report published on Wyborcza.biz, in which Maciej Samsik, journalist of Wyborcza’s business column, x-rays commercials, mostly those of banks, shark loans, financial advisors and telecom operators. Such actions are essential in the education and in the civic society, cause people should be aware of the pitfalls of advertised “bargains” and all “catches” in the suspiciously beneficial contracts. I hold it dear and would love to see more such analyses.

The opposite feelings in me were evoked by the real estate guide by TVN Warszawa. Their report on residential area of Nowa Iwiczna is full of factual errors and misrepresentations. Many of the shots in the footage do not actually show Nowa Iwiczna, bus service 739 does not run through Nowa Iwiczna, its nearest stop is half a mile away from the boundary of the village and distance from the nearest public facilities are much higher than given in the video. And the language, both the voice of the lector and the very content of the report are stilted. Dabbling in translating has sensitised to me that ugly style of Polish – clumsy syntax, bombastic, but trite collocations and illogical sentences are asking for being polished up. I got worked up and posted a comment on journalists’ dependability and erudition.

Ludność wzrosła poprzez budowę nowych osiedli i chęć mieszkania na obrzeżach Warszawy.

This is the most appalling example. In English, a population can rise, but in Polish we use “liczba ludności” and in the context of a small village, it is better to use “liczba mieszkańców”. The corrected sentence will read: Liczba mieszkańców wzrosła na skutek budowy nowych osiedli i mody na mieszkanie na obrzeżach Warszawy.

The poorly written texts lie the core of translators’ ordeal. If the source writing is crappy, the target one is more likely to sound badly. Unless a translator cares and does the editing job. This sentence might also illustrate what many translators grapple with, when they are translating from Polish into English. Polish language gives its user a large dose of freedom when it comes to syntax, German has very strict rules, English lies in the middle, but somewhat closer to German. The fact that it has a correct syntax and lots of constructions is used stylistic devises is often omitted in the teaching process, just like another issue of “natural flow”. The basic problem of the sentence I’m taking into pieces is posed by illogical links. It sounds very dubiously that the rising population is the effect of the new development. Those building were put up because there had been the demand on houses or flats in NI.

A Pole could translate the original sentence without taking any pains to produce anything up-to-standard:

The population grew through the construction of new estates and the willingness to live in the suburbs of Warsaw.

It would be also possible to translate the sentence edited by the author of this blog:

The number of residents rose, as a result of the construction of new estates and the fashion for living in the suburbs of Warsaw.

This also sound poorly, “of” appears three times in one sentence and it surely lacks natural flow, not to mention the syntactic trap.

I came up with two, rather decent translations.

1) Newly built estates and the trend to settle down in the city outskirts have brought about a rise in the number of residents.

2) Springing up development and the suburb-living fad have led to a rise in the number of residents.

It took me around a quarter to get to grips with one sentence, still the biggest flaw is the link between newly built estates and the number of residents. Some elements of those two sentences may be combined to reach a better outcome. If you have any suggestions on how to improve this translation, I will welcome your advice. But fifteen minutes? I think I wouldn’t make a living on translation working in such sluggish pace.

And why the hell haven’t the mentioned clogged up Puławska and commuting nightmare that has become a part of living here?!

The Wednesday afternoon brought the news that Ben Bernanke, the governor of Fed had been awarded the prestigious Time’s Man of the Year title. He is credited with averting a total collapse of financial markets, but the prize reflects only on his past accomplishments and leaves out the ramifications of the current US central bank policy. Economy will sooner or later bear the brunt of excessively low interest rates and quantitative easing. Those who benefit from such policy are the government, which finances and will pay its debts cheaper and financial industry, which uses cheap money to speculate. The ordinary people will sooner or later damn him, like they did with Alan Greenspan (look at the amount of criticism towards him in his wikipedia biography note), if not for the next crisis, then for the inflation tax they will have to pay.