Seven-Day Price Publication – What Can Trigger It, and What Does It Mean for Transparency?

 

We are now just over a week into the new seven-day price publication requirements for auctions and other sales campaigns with a defined timeline, such as expressions of interest and deadline sales.

Conversations with agents suggest that the first week has been confusing, to say the least.

Looking at properties that have proceeded to auction, rather than being withdrawn or converted to a private sale, we have seen a range of outcomes:

• some properties have sold at auction above the reserve price.
• some have sold after the auction, above the reserve price.
• others have sold after the auction, below the reserve price.
• some have not sold, with reserve prices remaining unchanged or being reduced from what vendors had originally hoped to achieve.

This is not unexpected. But confusion is growing around a different scenario: what happens when a buyer makes an offer before the scheduled auction date?

We are seeking further clarification on several aspects of the new requirements, particularly how agents can manage these offers while maintaining transparency and fairness for all interested buyers.

Questions that need answering

The intention behind these new regulations is to make the buying process clearer and fairer. However, if their practical application creates uncertainty for agents and frustration for buyers, there is a risk that the process will achieve the opposite of what was intended.

The questions we believe need further clarification include:

• Can a pre-auction offer below the published reserve price be accepted, and under what circumstances?
• Which actions trigger a new seven-day publication period, particularly when an early sale or a change to the campaign timeline is proposed?
• How should agents manage competing pre-auction offers, including any opportunity for the original offer-maker to respond, while ensuring the process is fair and compliant?

These are practical questions that agents are facing now, and clear answers would help create greater consistency across the industry.

In the meantime, here are our observations on what has changed since the new rules came into effect.

How do the new rules apply to pre-auction offers?

Our current understanding is that restrictions may apply to accepting a pre-auction offer below the published reserve price during the relevant seven-day period. We are seeking further clarification on the precise requirements and how they apply in practice.

Similarly, where an offer meets or exceeds the published reserve price, we understand that a vendor may be able to choose to sell before the scheduled auction date, subject to the applicable requirements.

These are important distinctions, and clarity is needed so agents can confidently advise vendors and buyers on the options available to them.

This is where things can become complicated.

If a vendor is prepared to sell before auction, how can the agent manage competing interest transparently without inadvertently triggering a new seven-day publication period or creating further uncertainty?

One of the key questions requiring clarification is ‘what specific actions trigger a new seven-day publication period?’

Does it apply when an earlier auction is proposed, when a new deadline is introduced for competing offers, or when the advertised sale timeline changes in another way?

Until these scenarios are clearly understood, agents may find themselves uncertain about how to negotiate an early sale without inadvertently triggering further regulatory requirements or delaying the sale.

How are agents currently managing early offers?

We have heard of agents adopting the following approach over the past week:

1. Advise interested buyers that an acceptable offer has been received, without necessarily disclosing the amount.
2. Invite other interested buyers to submit their best offer as soon as possible, explaining that the property may sell at any time, without specifying a deadline.
3. Give the original offer-maker a final opportunity to match or improve on competing offers.

Depending on the number of interested buyers, this approach can leave some feeling disadvantaged or frustrated. Buyers may not know where they stand, how competitive their offer needs to be, or whether they have had a genuine opportunity to participate.

The third step raises a further question.  Should the original offer-maker automatically receive a final opportunity to match or improve on competing offers?

While this may be intended to maintain goodwill with the original buyer, other interested buyers could reasonably question whether they have been given an equal opportunity to compete.

Clarification is needed on how this practice fits within the applicable requirements and what constitutes a fair and transparent process for all parties.

Ultimately, a process that leaves buyers feeling uncertain or disadvantaged risks undermining one of the key benefits of an auction campaign: the perception that all interested buyers have a fair opportunity to compete.

Is there a more transparent approach?

Perhaps a more buyer-friendly process would be to consider the following, where permitted by the regulations.

1. Communicate clearly with interested buyers

Advise buyers that an offer has been received and, where appropriate and authorised, disclose the amount.

Ask whether they wish to participate in the process before the property sells.

This reinforces the importance of buyers registering their interest with the selling agent and remaining contactable, particularly during the final week of an auction campaign.

Buyers should also understand that they may need to respond promptly if the vendor is considering an offer before auction.

2. Give interested buyers a genuine opportunity to participate

Where the rules permit, buyers could be invited to improve their offers, with the agent communicating relevant updates consistently to all participating buyers.

This could continue until the buyers decide not to proceed and a successful purchaser is identified.

Any such process would need to comply with the applicable price publication, disclosure and timing requirements. Agents should not assume that an informal negotiation process is automatically exempt from those rules.

The aim should be to provide a clear process in which interested buyers understand their opportunity to participate, rather than feeling they are competing in an unknown or constantly changing situation.

3. Aim for an outcome that gives both parties confidence

A well-managed process should give buyers confidence that they have been treated fairly, while allowing the vendor to make an informed decision and achieve the strongest possible price the market will support.

Transparency does not necessarily mean every buyer will be happy with the outcome. It does, however, mean that buyers should understand the process and feel they have had a reasonable opportunity to participate.

For vendors, the objective remains the same: to secure the best possible outcome while complying with the requirements and maintaining confidence in the sales process.

What about an earlier auction?

Traditionally, an auction could sometimes be brought forward, whether at the property, in a boardroom or via an online meeting such as Zoom.

Under the new requirements, however, an earlier auction or a change to the advertised sale timeline may have implications for the seven-day publication period.

Agents should therefore seek clarification before proposing or arranging an alternative auction time or format, rather than assuming the original campaign timeline can simply be changed without consequences.

This is another area where clear guidance would help agents understand the options available to them and avoid unintentionally creating additional requirements for themselves, their vendors or prospective buyers.

A final thought for selling agents

The challenge is to understand not only what the regulations require, but also how to implement them in a way that preserves buyer confidence, protects the vendor’s interests and maintains transparency throughout the sales campaign.

The question is not simply whether a property can be sold before auction. It is how that sale can be managed fairly, transparently and in accordance with the new requirements.

Without clear guidance and a consistent approach, we may see a further increase in buyer frustration at a time when these reforms are intended to make buying a home easier for buyers.

Ultimately, the old system was not perfect, and there were certainly aspects of the process that could be improved. Any changes that genuinely aim to create a fairer, more transparent and more consistent process for everyone involved, buyers and sellers alike, should be welcomed. The challenge is ensuring that the new requirements achieve their intended purpose in practice, giving buyers confidence in the process while protecting vendors’ interests and allowing agents to do their job effectively. If these reforms can deliver that balance, they will be a positive step forward for the industry.

 

Disclaimer

The observations and comments in this article are based on early discussions with industry professionals and our initial reading and interpretation of the new seven-day reserve price publication requirements.

While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, the industry is still working through the practical application of these requirements and clarifying what can and cannot be done in different circumstances.

This article is intended to encourage discussion and share early observations, rather than provide definitive legal or regulatory advice. Agents should seek clarification from the relevant regulatory authority where necessary before acting on any interpretation of the requirements.