Estate agent claiming fee for house they didnt sell

boris77

Hi,

We are having some trouble with an estate agent trying to claim their fee even though they did not sell the house.

What happened is they showed someone round, an offer was put in, it was rejected at that was the end of it.

Then an offer came in from another estate agent who showed the same person round, an offer was made and accepted.

Suddenly we get a letter saying that the first estate agent has found the details on the land registry and now want money.

It wasn't obvious that the person the first estate agent showed round was the same as the second estate agent. To be honest the first estate agent was pretty useless.

We've mentioned the Foxton case but they say it doesnt apply as they put in an offer from the person. The missus is at her wits end as they are now threatening court action. Anyone any advice/thoughts?

PasturesNew

Firstly, you need to read the actual agreement you signed - there are some variations of contracts, there's no one "norm" for it.

Did EA1 know you'd also instructed EA2?

What agreements did you sign for them both.

If you'd had EA1, THEN EA2, not at the same time, then EA1 should/would have written a list of people they'd shown round and EA2 would have taken that list and known. In this case EA1 would have received the commission for it. EA2 would have been upset they missed out, but they know this goes on and they'd do it themselves... so it's part of their game.


BUT ... it does depend on who was appointed, under what agreement, on what dates - and when the buyer was shown round (on each occasion).

EA1 might have a valid claim.

googler

More detail required. Were EA1 and EA2 on joint agency, or did you cancel with EA1 THEN hire EA2?

Wording from EA1 contract would help, too....

boris77

PasturesNew wrote: »

Firstly, you need to read the actual agreement you signed - there are some variations of contracts, there's no one "norm" for it.

Did EA1 know you'd also instructed EA2?

What agreements did you sign for them both.

If you'd had EA1, THEN EA2, not at the same time, then EA1 should/would have written a list of people they'd shown round and EA2 would have taken that list and known. In this case EA1 would have received the commission for it. EA2 would have been upset they missed out, but they know this goes on and they'd do it themselves... so it's part of their game.


BUT ... it does depend on who was appointed, under what agreement, on what dates - and when the buyer was shown round (on each occasion).

EA1 might have a valid claim.

Thanks for the quick reply.

EA1 knew about EA2
EA1 was sole agency but this moved to multi-agency 6months before the sale.
EA1 introduced a single person, presumed divorced from info.
EA2 introduced a couple (a month later). Which EA1 are claiming is the same person.

I have heard it mentioned that EA2 should of checked with EA1 to ensure no introductions had been made?

Hopejack

EA2 should have checked and my friend who is an EA told me of a case where this happened near to us a while back. EA2 backed down on the fee and let the EA1 take it - they didn't think it was fair to try and charge the client twice!

Tell your EAs to fight it out amongst themselves but make it clear to both in writing that you will only be paying one fee - if they want to split it/negotiate bet themselves on it then that is up to them!

ETA - this is why it's always imperative when signing on an EA, to ask them, that in the event that you 'sack' them, that they provide a list of all 'introductions' they claim to have made.

boris77

Hopejack wrote: »

EA2 should have checked and my friend who is an EA told me of a case where this happened near to us a while back. EA2 backed down on the fee and let the EA1 take it - they didn't think it was fair to try and charge the client twice!

Tell your EAs to fight it out amongst themselves but make it clear to both in writing that you will only be paying one fee - if they want to split it/negotiate bet themselves on it then that is up to them!

ETA - this is why it's always imperative when signing on an EA, to ask them, that in the event that you 'sack' them, that they provide a list of all 'introductions' they claim to have made.

We did initially tell EA1 to go to EA2 if they thought they had a right to claim and CC'd EA2. But they came straight back to us threatening legal action. (No response from EA2).

We didn't sack EA1. The buyer appeared to of gone to EA1 put an offer in which we rejected. EA1 didn't follow up.
Then a month later we got an offer from a couple (we didn't realise it was the same person) via EA2 which after negotiations we accepted. Should EA2 of checked with EA1 as part of multi-agency selling?

We wonder why the buyer didn't go back to EA1 (did they do something to upset her?). It wasn't immediately obvious that the couple could be the same the single lady buyer. As EA1 didn't introduce a couple just a single lady could it be argued that they didn't introduce the male partner thus have no claim?

Hopejack

I think they are being totally unfair with you to be honest. They should be professional and fight it amongst themselves. EA2 should be looking to try and negotiate with EA1 imo.

I think the fact that the woman was part of the couple still means they introduced her to be fair.

It's a horrible situation to be in. I really think they need to sort it out themselves. I presume you've paid the fee already out of the sale proceeds?

If you were multi-agency and they were both aware of it then yes, imo they should have checked with one another, not surely legally where you'd stand with that though as a contract is a contract.....

boris77

Yep paid EA2 their fee as they completed the sale. Unfortunately to make things worse we had to sell with negative equity. Thought it was all done and dusted when we got the letter through 2/3months after the sale. :-(

Will go back to EA2 to see if they contacted EA1 or not. Fingers crossed they did. Failing that court (we have no money to pay their fee anyway) and hope the due to the Foxtons case the judge comes down on ourside.

Fire_Fox

I had understood that when estate agents put an offer to you they are supposed to do so in writing, did that not happen with the first offer, did you not get a name?

JQ.

I'm no expert on contracts, so i would await more expert opinion than my own, but I suspect the reason the EA's can't sort it out amongst themselves is because they have no contractual relationship with each other. You have a contract with EA1 and you have a contract with EA2, they therefore only have any recourse to yourself. Ultimately, this is something you should have sorted prior to paying EA2, so the only way EA1 can now recover their money (if they are entitled to it of course) is to take action against you, then you would have to take action against EA2 to recover the money you've already paid to them.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I find it hard to believe that you did not know that it was the same person making the offer. When we've had offers from people I've wanted to know every detail possible about them so as to properly assess their offer and proceedability. Of course EA2 could have deceived you, as I can't imagine someone would make a second offer on a property without mentioning their first offer.

jenny74

The way I see it from the info supplied is that EA1 introduced the buyer to you, so EA1 is probably legally entitled to a fee.

To be honest when EA2 arranged the viewing for the same person (abeit part of a couple now) it should have got your alarm bells ringing. You obviously knew it was the same person and seem to have buried your head in the sand. You should have addressed it at the time.

At the end of the day EA1 introduced the person who actually bought your house, so it is clear they are owed something.

As PP says, EA1 and EA2 have no contract with each other, which is why EA1 is chasing you for the money.

When I was selling my house last year (I was on with 2 EAs) both EAs left a message to arrange a viewing for the same client. I was honest and went with the one who left the first message. Not that it mattered anyway as these ones didn't buy.

Not what you want to hear, but tell it like it is, and all.