sold property to Tenants ex-husband - advice pls

Debt_Free_Chick

thisisthecount wrote: »

"If any tenant contracts to purchase any interest in the Property as a result of an introduction either directly or indirectly by Managing Agents whether as a result of viewing or while in occupation or after vacating the Property the Management Agents will be entitled to charge and be paid 1.5% plus Vat on the consideration paid for the interest and such payment will become due and payable upon completion of the sale of the said interest in the Property"

You say this clause is in your contract with the letting agent. What is the definintion of "tenant" in that contract?

This clause is quite specific ... it applies (only) if "any TENANT" contracts to buy any interest in the property.

So, what's the definition of tenant?

DVardysShadow

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

To fight this would cost you more than 1.5% in fees so don't be greedy.
It looks like you have got a sale without having to evict your tenants, no HIP, no estate agent cost and in today's market you would be mad to lose this sale over this.

As the contract states clearly "tenant", I would suggest it is the Agent who would be mad to fight. Although I agree 1,5% is too little to be a showstopper

thisisthecount

Will check that contract and come back to you about the "definition" The sale of property won't get stopped because of this, that will still go through as long as I can get the Tenants deposit off the Agent so they can give this to the Tenant.

I'm not saying this is going to stop the sale, its just the fact the Agent sounds like they could come after me for this amount.

gauly

The ruling on unfair terms that went against Foxton's recently also mentioned sales commision. They were charging 2.5% if the house was sold to a tenant. See here for example:
http://www.rentmanagement.co.uk/articles/760/1/OFT-vs-Foxtons-Unfair-Terms-Ruling/Page1.html

"He said a typical consumer would be unlikely to read standard terms with a great degree of attention and would not expect important obligations to be tucked away in the small print and not specifically brought to their attention. He also found that Foxtons had used language in its contracts which is not 'plain and intelligible'.

On the use of a term providing for sales commission to be payable on the sale of a property to a tenant, the judge said consumers would not merely be surprised but 'astonished' by the potentially large financial liability to Foxtons in relation to a transaction in which Foxtons played no material part."

So, it isn't even clear that commission is payable if you are selling to the tenant, never mind a guarantor. Was this term highlighted in the terms and conditions? Were you aware of it when you signed with them and did they draw it to your attention? If not then it sounds like you have an excellent case for not paying.

Doozergirl

The clause says "tenant", introduced directly or indirectly. If your tenant bought the property via your suggestion, it would be an indirect introduction via the EA. Fact is, it is not the tenant buying and therefore no fee is payable. The wording is quite easily interpretable and therefore IMO no fee is payable if it is not the tenant buying, regardless of the fact that the buyer is connected to the tenant.

Debt_Free_Chick

Assuming the occupier, only, is named as the Tenant - and the definition of Tenant in the contract is something like "the person or persons named on page 1" (or whatever), then the sales clause only applies if that specific person buys the property or an interest in the property.

So ... is the Tenant buying jointly with her ex-husband? Or will she acquire an interest in the property e.g. is her ex buying the property for her?

Whilst it seems unlikely that the sales commission applies, it might do, but one needs to see the whole contract and have full details of the purchase.

I'm still a little on the fence on this one ....

clutton_2

whenever i have used an agent to find me a tenant, i simply cross out this clause and initial next to it .... its nonsense - what exactly has the EA done to find a buyer ? nothing -

They were originally paid to find a tenant ... end of .. in my humble opinion.... If the have no further involvement in the sale - what exactly are they asking for money for ???

they are demanding payment twice for the same service.