Property auctions are one of the most popular places for prospective investors and developers to look for projects. There are many alternatives, but auctions remain very popular despite the current difficulties in obtaining finance.
The auction hall is often looked upon as the first step on the path to running a property business. However, auction day is really the very end of the first stage.
There are some terms that are used when describing auction lots that many potential bidders are not familiar with. It is so important to understand what you are getting into; auctions can be unforgiving to the unprepared:
“The vendor is a Mortgagee not in possession“.
- Obviously the Vendor is the party who is selling the property at auction.
- The ‘Mortgagee‘ is the bank or building society who originally provided the loan for the purchase of the property (the Lender). This is the opposite of the ‘Mortgagor’ who is the person(s) buying the property (borrower).
- The term ‘Not in Possession‘ means that the party selling the property do not actually own the legal interest (whether this is Freehold or Leasehold). When a lender provides a loan (mortgage) for a person to buy a property, the lender has a ‘first charge’ on the property. This means that they retain the legal right to sell the property to recoup financial loss in the event of the borrower breaching the terms of the mortgage by defaulting on the repayments.
So, what the term above means in laymans terms, is
“that the party selling the property is a bank/building society who do not actually hold the legal title on the property, but who are exercising their legal right to get their money back by selling the property.” Essentially, it’s a repossession.
© Copyright Brendan and Ruth McCartney and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence
“Therefore the accommodation and any basis of occupancy cannot be confirmed”
- This means that the parties offering the property up for sale at auction (the legal firm and the auction agents providing the details) will not offer any indication of the state of current occupancy. There could be (for example) 20-odd families living in it, or there could be a terminally ill old lady….. It’s absolutely the responsibility of the person intending to buy the property to reassure themselves and investigate the situation before they bid.
- If you were to bid on a particular property and actually get the winning bid, you do not have much in the way of recourse if it turns out you’ve bought something not quite right. It’s only if a property has been falsely advertised and you believe something you are told in good faith that you can take action to legally rectify this (by suing someone for example). This is why the auction agents will not give any information in respect of anything they don’t know for certain, it’s because they know they can be sued for it if it turns out to be incorrect.
- If you were to successfully bid on a property and it turns out someone is already living in it (legally or otherwise), that party often has some legal rights to stay there until you obtain a court-order to evict them.
Essentially, it’s up to the bidding party to investigate the current circumstances of the property. If you want to purchase an investment property with a tenant already in place, then it’s up to you to make sure that the tenancy and lease are all in order and no-one is living there who shouldn’t be. If you intend to buy a vacant property, then it’s up to you to make sure it is indeed empty before you bid. There is often hidden legal issues in property, especially at auction. However, there is usually every opportunity to make sure that nothing comes back to bite you on the a***. If you are offered a property without actually seeing and investigating it, then (to be realistic) you shouldn’t pay much for it because you’re exposing yourself to massive financial risk.
In respect of purchasing the property at auction, it is 80%-90% a legal process. You are purchasing the legal title to a property which means you will have ‘exclusive possession’ (unless someone else is living in it and also has a legal right to be there). You should be 100% certain that you know what you’re buying into before you bid.
When buying a property at auction, it pays to be suspicious about everything; so do your homework!




Why a packaged-up property investment does not work
When I was studying to become a Surveyor and learning about property investment and valuation in particular, I remember seeing a large development of flats being constructed and a banner caught my eye. It read ‘12% yield, guaranteed’. I thought about this for quite some time because the subject of yields was very fresh in my mind.
The term ‘yield’ within the field of investment means the sum of money that your investment returns to you on a regular basis. It is in effect your payment for letting someone use the asset it is based upon. If this were a bond or a company share, then the yield would be the payment for lending/giving a corporation or government your money (the purchase price). In the case of property investment, it is the return (in the form of a rent payment) for allowing a tenant the use of your property.
The equation to calculate the yield figure is simply the return over 1 year, as a percentage of the capital value. So for example, if the annual return for a particular investment was £5,000; and the capital value was £100,000 then the yield would be 5%. As the yield figure is based upon two figures (annual return and capital value); if one changes, then it will alter the yield figure. So using the example above, if a property is returning £5,000 per year (this is written into the tenancy agreement and subsequently cannot be changed easily) and the capital value rises to £120,000, the yield would become 4.2% (£5,000 is approx 4.2% of £120,000). Likewise if the capital value dropped to £80,000, the yield would become 6.25%.
Most investments, (property included) provide a yield of between 4% and 8% (very approximately). Residential property tends be lower yield because the capital value is higher and investors look upon it as long-term and low risk. A realistic yield for residential property might be around 4%-5%.
At the other end of the scale, retail property tends to be highest yielding because the investor will be anxious to recoup the initial purchase price in as short a time as possible because these properties represent a higher risk to him (retail property is extremely sensitive to economic influences). So the rent will be set fairly high, but the capital value will be quite low. A realistic yield figure for retail property might be around 8%.
With this information in mind, why would a banner advertise that a return of 12% is guaranteed on a residential development?
Many developments are planned from the outset to rely heavily on buy-to-let investors. Obviously the development I saw was one of them. The developer will be keen to sell as many units as possible to achieve his planned return. An investment company might partner up with the developer and seek to sell individual units to private property investors. The appeal of this arrangement is that the investment company will manage the property, including finding a tenant. At the end of each month they collect the rent and pay you your share. Sounds good doesn’t it? Investors get to receive a return on their outlay and don’t have to do anything for it. However, it really isn’t that simple.
To be completely honest, I really do not know how any company can provide an investor with a 12% yield. Let alone guarantee it. However with the benefit of experience, I can make a couple of assumptions:
1. That the contract between the private investor and the management company contains some very onerous smallprint that in effect makes the initial promise of a guaranteed return worthless.
2. That the property’s capital value is manipulated to reflect a much lower figure. This has the effect of increasing the yield rate.
The market in residential property ensures that if a particular development is overpriced, customers will simply go elsewhere.
To guarantee a yield figure to an investor seems to me, madness or just lies. The tenant is highly unlikely to pay such an inflated figure for so long that to offer any promise of such a high return is simply not possible. The management/investment company would have to heavily subsidise this return, and that is not a very smart business model at all is it? There isn’t a landlord or investment company in existence that can guarantee a tenant in occupation (even in the case of social housing, governments, policies and budgets are always subject to change). Risk, to a greater or lesser degree is part of investment. It is the element of risk that provides you with your return.
The point I wish to make, is that the concepts of being a ‘remote’ investor, and expecting the venture to pay for itself are not really compatible with each other. Guaranteed yields aside, off the top of my head there are at least 3 reasons why these packaged up investments are unlikely to make you much money:
These 3 aspects form the very basis of how investors and developers make money from property. The fundamental process being:
Buy the property at a discount, carry out work that increases value, and sell at a price that provides a decent profit.
So there you have it, these packaged up property investments might look very tempting. However, scratch the surface and you will see that they manage to one-by-one, eliminate all your opportunities to make a profit.
I believe I can say without fear of being contradicted, that anyone who really makes money from property has done it through being heavily involved in the whole process. It is only possible to delegate the work once you have people working for you.