房屋中介大咖支招：抢房新招！？

还以为买房，租房奏不应该回来发这个贴看中当场转订金呀

抱歉没写清楚，租房，哈哈所以租客抢着付中介费也是正常的了是吗？

正常的是正常的。不过建议你放弃。对面志在必得。

正常操作现在稍微好点的房子都不愁租，肯定都是租客出了

这，现在都卷成这样了吗？

大概率是忽悠你的。

我觉得放弃吧找找看还有没有别的房子，为房东付中介费有点不值得，你要租多久？2年 5年还是多少年？谁知道房东会不会没住多久又卖掉清场...不值得的

可以竞价，不要帮对方出中介费conflict of interest

我也觉得这个中介是忽悠既然房子这么走俏，这个中介代表房东，那么他的目标是照顾房东利益，尽量抬高价格，而不是来找你要中介费。

才看到要替房东出中介费明显是忽悠啊。就说先考虑其他的先。

租房不仅仅是看房子，还要考察房东和中介的人品。这么看，中介房东要违规让你出中介费，赶紧放弃为好，否则后继的麻烦多着呢，比如退房的时候吹毛求疵，扣押金，平时拖延维修。

如果这是屋主的中介，他就不应该把这个问题丢给你而应该直接回绝另一组租客，有意向可以增加给屋主的OFFER，但不能出屋主中介费，就像凡人所说，conflict of interests.
另一组租客可能不懂，但是中介不应该不明白规定。

对于你来说，如果想租这个屋子，也应该是以增加offer的方式，而不是MATCH TO 另一组租客。

要小心“被中介”花冤枉钱有些房东中介看行情走俏，就出幺蛾子：他自己代表房东收一份中介费，会给direct tenant安排一个他同事代表租客，让租客再出一份中介费。当然他们也怕惹急了租客，这个租客中介费通常会打点折扣。各种明示暗示不出钱不接你的offer.

为什么不直接抬高租金？抬高租金的话屋主得益，中介多获得的收益是微乎其微的，但多出一份中介费，对中介收入的有很大区别。

所以这个“帮屋主出中介费”的操作，大概率屋主并没被帮忙了，而是依然不知情的继续出屋主中介费。

这个中介搞笑？ 谁出钱中介就代表谁。。 楼主你不要玩脱了

via　https://www.cea.gov.sg/docs/default-source/consumers/no-dual-representation.pdf

No dual representation　

If a real estate salesperson tells you that he can represent you in your purchase and at the same time he is engaged by the seller to sell the flat. Ask yourself, whose interest will he be safeguarding? It used to be a prevalent practice in the HDB resale market, with sellers’ salespersons often collecting a commission from the buyer or refusing to sell to a particular buyer if there is no commission. This practice presents a clear conflict of interest. The sellers naturally want the highest price for their property and buyers would want to pay the lowest. The same salesperson cannot possibly discharge his professional duties to both equally and to represent both their interests fully. The Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) has prohibited the practice of dual representation with effect from 15 November 2010. A salesperson cannot be appointed by both buyer and seller for the same property transaction. He can only act for one party. The same prohibition also covered the rental transactions. The ban on dual representation applies to all property transactions, including residential, commercial and industrial properties. However, he may help the other party to do paperwork as long as it is clear to all parties that he is not acting for the other party and has obtained the consent of his client. Also, he cannot collect a fee from the other party for the paperwork rendered. If a salesperson collects a fee from the tenant/buyer and also collects part of the fee from the landlord/seller, it will be a case of dual representation and is an offence under the Estate Agents Act. In addition, a salesperson may not collect a commission from his client and collect a co-broke fee from the other salesperson representing the other party for the same transaction as there will be a conflict of interest. So what is co-broking? Co-broking refers to the involvement of two or more salespersons in the property transaction. The salesperson should promote your interest and explain and advise you on the co-broking option in the Estate Agency Agreement to you. Co-broking is advantageous as it widens the exposure of the property to all salespersons and consumers. With more potential parties who may be interested, you may be able to get the best deal. The salesperson should not deny co-broking opportunities to other salespersons because of pre-identified salesperson/s whom he is only prepared to work with. Case Study 1 – Salesperson A posted an advertisement of a flat for sale. A buyer responded to the advertisement and asked A to cobroke with his salesperson. However, A refused to co-broke and insisted the buyer to engage his partner B as the buyer’s salesperson. The buyer declined the offer. A second buyer came along and the flat was sold to him, with B representing the buyer and A representing the seller. The first buyer was unhappy as he lost out the deal because he refused to engage B as his salesperson. Case Study 2 – A salesperson advertised a property for sale and in the advertisement, indicated the words “already co-broke” and “1% commission – buyer”. It was targeted at turning away other salespersons and potential buyers who did not wish to engage any salesperson. The salesperson had intended to have the transaction handled only amongst salespersons in her team, and have different members of the team collect commissions from the seller and from the buyer. The salesperson had acted contrary to the interest of the property owner (seller) and brought disrepute to the industry. The salesperson should not deny opportunities to others by adopting unacceptable practices such as advertising the property with phrases such as “buyers only”, “no agents”, “already co-broke” or other similar terms which are not in the interest of their clients. The salesperson also cannot force someone to engage him and pay him commission if they are interested in the property. For instance, he cannot deny property viewing opportunity to a consumer who did not want to engage him. If the consumer is interested and does not intend to engage a salesperson, he can still try to participate and cannot be blocked from expressing interest or making an offer for the property. CEA takes a serious view of salespersons who seek to block other salespersons or consumers from participating in the property transaction to the detriment of the client’s interest. CEA will take action against the errant salesperson.

谢谢大家有用的回复前天已经拒绝这个要求了，加了一点点房价竞标。再次感谢各位支招指点！