Do we have to pay estate agent fee?

Doozergirl

Thanks for the transcript, I did wonder where that could be found.

It is based around the wording of the contract but the benefit of it being sole agency means that the wording of the sole agency part is made more clear by common sense that has to be applied to the multiple agency contract.

This is the most important phrasing to me "it appears to me that my preferred interpretation accords better with such relevant guidance as there is in the cases as to the language used in the Terms. In John D Wood at 25K-L, Nourse LJ considered "the familiar meaning of the word 'introduction'" in the context of the phrase "introduction of a purchaser". He concluded that the phrase could "only mean the introduction of the person who ultimately purchases, not to the property, but to the purchase, or, if you look at it from the vendor's angle, to the sale; in either case to the transaction that takes place."

Bit here as well which I think is pertinent because Foxton's appear to have used the mailing of a flier in the summer as part of their argument "it is not that hard to envisage circumstances which could lead to arguments if Foxtons' interpretation were correct. For instance, as to who first introduced an eventual purchaser to a particular property, whether there could be more than one introduction of the same person to the same property, or whether a particular flier was actually read by someone who ultimately purchased." (The judge states earlier that the contracts must have been worded to avoid more than one fee being payable and essentially Foxtons are wrong)

All this legal stuff! I had something similar happen with a letting and it was a stand up argument (as with a previous poster) that saw the bill retracted. Foxtons I can imagine are quite litigious and the sum involved over 33,000 - will the average agent really go that far anyway?

Debt_Free_Chick

Doozergirl wrote: »

All this legal stuff! I had something similar happen with a letting and it was a stand up argument (as with a previous poster) that saw the bill retracted. Foxtons I can imagine are quite litigious and the sum involved over 33,000 - will the average agent really go that far anyway?

No - and that's a good point. It may be sufficient to get the EA to back off, if the OP mentions the Foxtons case. On the other hand, if they get their solicitor to look at it, it may be refuted

It's worth fighting - up to the point that solicitors get involved - but the OP should see it as "a chance" to get the EA to back down and not a cast-iron certainty that she has a 100% case of winning this one.



Guess I'm just getting cautious in my old age - hey, maybe less Bolshy

Perhaps not

Brizzo

I've just updated my solicitor and told her it's because of them the EA knows which she apologised for.
I read the the EA's amusing letter which made her laugh at how ludicrous it all it. She told me she did speak to the EA about how they knew and they reckoned it was because my buyer say their financial guy but that was before they were officially buying mine so we know that's bull.

The solicitor has now advised that I ignore them as when I move they won't know where I am and will have to drop the case - can they do this or is this bad advice?

digii_dave

Brizzo wrote: »

I've just updated my solicitor and told her it's because of them the EA knows which she apologised for.
I read the the EA's amusing letter which made her laugh at how ludicrous it all it. She told me she did speak to the EA about how they knew and they reckoned it was because my buyer say their financial guy but that was before they were officially buying mine so we know that's bull.

The solicitor has now advised that I ignore them as when I move they won't know where I am and will have to drop the case - can they do this or is this bad advice?

They can find you on the voting list

Brizzo

So you think they would try chase me for the money still? I'm inclined to copy all the stupid correspondance I've received from them and my replies and send to the OEA cc'ing the EA - hopefully they'll be scared off then, what do you reckon?

sunshine_shell

Personally i would go down the EA's office and demand very loudly to speak to the manager about their rude and cheeky letter. Make as much noise as you can infront of as many customers as possible using words like incompetent, usless, couldn't organize a pi*s up in a weatherspoons etc

They won't like it, and hopfully they will stop sending the letters

Debt_Free_Chick

sunshine_shell wrote: »

Personally i would go down the EA's office and demand very loudly to speak to the manager about their rude and cheeky letter. Make as much noise as you can infront of as many customers as possible using words like incompetent, usless, couldn't organize a pi*s up in a weatherspoons etc

Or you may get arrested for breach of peace

Still, life's a carousel

sunshine_shell

Not that loudly that you'll get arrested!!! LOL

Brizzo

Do you think I should try writing one last letter using all the fabulous knowledge I've gained from all you very helpful people on this forum, ie foxtons case, sole agency contract meaning I can sell, mention they never acknowledged it was a genuine private sale when they wrote to me etc and top it all off by saying I have spoken to the OEA (which I have, albeit they weren't that helpful and told me to ring the CAB) and that I am filing a complaint against them....?

Or should I just follow the solicitors advice in ignoring them and moving out without paying?

Doozergirl

I think you solicitors idea is a good one tbh. If they're inclined to find you and chase you beyond that point then you can always start the letter writing again or go down there and kick off, lol!

Absolutely nothing would be due to any EA until exchange of contracts anyway so they can't do anything to you before then. Maybe it is better just to stay quiet and see if they go away.

Are you moving far?