on 18-10-2018 05:38 PM
I will preface this post by telling you that I get to see a lot of conversations in PEXA workspaces. The vast majority are straight forward and professional.
Since PEXA was formed we have all had a lot to learn, and let's face it, things don't always go as smooth as we would like.
I remember back in the world of paper settlements that things sometimes turned pear shaped too.
PEXA was never going to be the panacea for settlement problems. Certainly many issues involved with paper have been removed but the process still relies on everyone playing their part.
Settlements remain one of the most stressful events people can undertake, and as stakeholders in the settlement process we all face that stress from different angles every day.
There is one thing I hope we can all agree upon, and that is the fact that nobody involved in any part of the process is deliberately trying to sabotage, delay or miss a settlement.
If we can agree this point then hopefully we can agree that the language used in the conversation function in PEXA should always be of a professional manner that reflects respect for everyone else in a workspace, not derogatory or accusatory.
We all want the same thing: a successful settlement.
As we have seen over the last few years, positive collaboration and sharing best practice behaviours can help achieve this.
on 21-10-2018 12:07 PM
Thanks for sharing @Morri, you're absolutely right!
As frustrating and stressful as settlements might get, it's important to remember that the person on the other side of the conversation is trying to get the best outcome for the customer too.
on 24-10-2018 11:43 AM
While I agree with your sentiments and agree we all need to keep our cool during stressful times, I disagree with your comment "...it's important to remember that the person on the other side of the conversation is trying to get the best outcome for the customer too."
This is not the case with the bank teams who do not deal directly with the vendor or the purchaser or provide their contact details. They are not the ones advising the purchasers sitting outside their "new" home with removalists trucks settlement has just rolled over for 1 1/2 hours as one of the banks updated 1 minute pasted the actual settlement time. This would not have happen with a paper settlement.
Or a bank who notifies you approximately 4 weeks after discharge of mortgage was sent to them and they acknowledge receipt of, that you need to send it to "their" business banker...is it unreasonable to think they could do the right thing and forward it to "their" business banker. You would have to believe by the time they type their conversation they could have emailed to their colleague. Who is going to tell the "customer" that settlement maybe delayed because of "bank's requirement" we were not aware of?
on 15-11-2018 06:03 PM
RE: "nobody involved in any part of the process is deliberately trying to sabotage, delay or miss a settlement."
While certainly no one is trying to sabotage settlements, I feel that is far below the minimum standard of care required.
PEXA is a for-profit, partly privately owned entity with a government mandated monopoly over (almost) all property transactions. Surely with this position of power and privilege comes a correspondingly high requisite standard of care.
It's telling that PEXA has objected to the ACCC and the NSW Registrar-General attempting to impose price caps (on a government mandated monopoly of an essential service), consumer protections, and trying to guarantee the possibility of competition in the econveyancing market, showing that its interests lie solely in protecting its revenue stream for its owners (Macquarie, Link, the Big Four Banks, and the State Governments).
None of this detracts from the great job that PEXA staff are trying to do, or the fact that I have not yet had a settlement delayed to the next business day on PEXA, however this does explain why people may not be, and possibly should not be, willing to extend PEXA any benefit of the doubt or any tolerance for possible mishaps.
Just my 2c, thanks for reading.
on 18-11-2018 03:03 PM
Interesting points @DZTS and I’ve drafted a response below however I’m mindful we might be high-jacking this thread (sorry guys!).
There’s a lot of scuttlebutt in the industry of which we’re well aware so thank you for providing the opportunity to set the record straight directly.
We should be clear that PEXA, from day one, has had a price cap in place to protect practitioners and ultimately their customers.
PEXA has committed to a maximum increase of CPI annually which is set out in the Pricing Policy and Participation Agreement and is therefore bound by the terms set out in those documents with each of our members. Being the only operating ELNO, providing our members with certainty around price was the right thing to do from the outset.
PEXA is currently in discussions with NSW however it’s not exactly as you’ve described. In short, PEXA has asked NSW for consistency with the national framework which was established through extensive consultation with industry and overseen by national regulator, ARNECC. Having one state create their own rules which may be in conflict with the national approach is problematic for the industry as a whole. As such, we’ve asked NSW to work with ARNECC to identify a suitable approach for all members of the industry which can be applied on a nationally consistent basis.
PEXA also introduced a consumer guarantee long before NSW put out any requirements in this area so we’re definitely not fighting on that front! Both NSW and PEXA are aligned on protecting against adverse consumer outcomes. You can read more about that here: PEXA Residential Seller Guarantee.
In regard to competition, PEXA has actually facilitated potential competition in the ELNO market by providing ongoing access to the relevant data standards required for a competitor to build their solution. These standards were built and funded by PEXA so in that respect we’ve actually helped to make competition possible.
PEXA has had engagement with the ACCC right from the time it was created and will continue to collaborate with them, and any other relevant regulators, to ensure appropriate consumer protections are in place. As far as we know we are not in dispute with the ACCC and they have not made any demands of us in respect of price.
Trust that this helps you better understand where PEXA sits on a number of the matters you have raised. It’s a long response, but an important one.