Can my estate agent do this?

googler

Deleted_User wrote: »

Yet you're paying the EA to act on your behalf. Is there a duty of care? Of trust? E.g. in paying the EA they are bound to act in your best interests.

I could understand if no offer had been made, but it appears they willingly invited the buyer to view another property (benefitting them?) and so breached their duty of care to you (if a duty exists).

The neighbour is also paying the EA to act on their behalf. A duty of care toward them exists also.

There's no evidence the EA 'invited' the buyer to the other property over and above their normal level of advertising. If the buyer asked the EA about the neighbouring property, and they didn't tell him about it, wouldn't that breach their duty of care to the neighbour?

Bottom line, would you suggest that this EA stop acting for both the OP and his neighbour over this?

hans_kroonenburg

MAJORTOM wrote: »

Hi all, sold my house to a buyer, after a few weeks of me looking for properties, I noticed out my window one day, my estate agent taking my buyer next door for a viewing as they were also on the market.

Later that day I found out my buyer was now buying next door and was pulling out of my sale. All 3 parties were using same estate agent!

So my question is this, can my estate agent take my buyer to anothers house for a viewing etc?

We never got to exchange of contracts but all legal stuff leading up to was going through fine.

Hi There,

Hans Kroonenburg here, new to the site. I think the buyer has the right to change their mind, up until the exchange of contracts. I could be wrong though.

macman

hans_kroonenburg wrote: »

Hi There,

Hans Kroonenburg here, new to the site. I think the buyer has the right to change their mind, up until the exchange of contracts. I could be wrong though.

Welcome to the forum Hans.
Yes, the buyer (or indeed the seller) can change their mind up until the time of exchange. However that isn't really the issue here-the issue is whether the EA has acted wrongly.

JimmyTheWig

I would be miffed if the same agent was showing the buyer other properties, regardless of where they were.
Equally as a buyer I would be miffed if the same agent was showing other prospective buyers around a property that I had an offer with.

macman

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I would be miffed if the same agent was showing the buyer other properties, regardless of where they were.
Equally as a buyer I would be miffed if the same agent was showing other prospective buyers around a property that I had an offer with.

That's entirely different. It's normal when an offer has been accepted, for the agent to be instructed not to market the property further. However, if another buyer were to make an offer, then the agent is duty bound to pass that offer on to the vendor.

[Deleted User]

googler wrote: »

The neighbour is also paying the EA to act on their behalf. A duty of care toward them exists also.

There's no evidence the EA 'invited' the buyer to the other property over and above their normal level of advertising. If the buyer asked the EA about the neighbouring property, and they didn't tell him about it, wouldn't that breach their duty of care to the neighbour?

Bottom line, would you suggest that this EA stop acting for both the OP and his neighbour over this?

You're missing what I'm saying: which is that if an EA does owe a duty of care to both parties then he must be breaching one by upholding the other!

You pay an estate agent to represent your best interests. That's WHY you pay them - to present YOUR interests. That's why you choose one EA over another.

In helping accept an offer from a buyer they've satisfied that test, but I would assume that they should then not allow that buyer to view other properties on their books, surely? Otherwise they immediately stop acting in your best interests and start acting in the buyer's?

I'm not suggesting that it's the EA's fault per se; if anything, the vendor shouldn't have invited the same EA to sell his house as the next door neighbour. But given the stage that discussions had reached it seems sensible to adopt a 'first in line' rule: the EA should have put the vendor off viewing the neighbouring property and supported the original vendor as they were there first.

Twopints

Deleted_User wrote: »

You're missing what I'm saying: which is that if an EA does owe a duty of care to both parties then he must be breaching one by upholding the other!

By that logic an EA would only be able to have one client at time.

getmore4less

The buyer can look at what he want with any EA he wants.

Can't see the problem with the EA showing buyers that have made offers other properties I would not stop looking till contract exchange you never know when something better will come along mght even be next door.

The fact that you were still looking and not proceedable would make it even more important to keep looking

Its not uncommon for multiple offers and contract races to be in place by both buyers and sellers.

[Deleted User]

Twopints wrote: »

By that logic an EA would only be able to have one client at time.

Only if the two are next door to each other, or competitive within unreasonable proximity.

RabbitMad

Deleted_User wrote: »

If the EA has a duty of care to both then presumably he should have notified the vendor (who had agreed the offer) that he was showing the buyer to the neighbouring property?

I think this hits the nail on the head. The EA should have let the OP know that the buyer was still viewing other properties.

However the EA could have been strung a line by the buyer that they had come into some cash and were looking for several investments, so in that case they wouldn't have needed to tell the OP.

getmoreforless wrote:

I would not stop looking till contract exchange you never know when something better will come along mght even be next door.

I wanted to apply the same logic to my OH after we got engaged but was told that wasn't on.