estate agents are crooks?

sunman

I am about to change estate agent and my exisiting EA has pointed out section 18 of the 1979 EA act in which it stated that any viewer introduced during the period of the sole agency then the old EA will have to be paid their due commision.
This imo is no right or correct any comments.
Is their a time limted on this or not?

googler

Have you read the act yourself? There'll be an online version on a govt site somewhere.

Also, have you read your contract with the EA?

Don't you think the thread title is a touch extreme, bearing in mind the content of your post?

sunman

googler wrote: »

Have you read the act yourself? There'll be an online version on a govt site somewhere.

Also, have you read your contract with the EA?

Don't you think the thread title is a touch extreme, bearing in mind the content of your post?

yes but it gives no time limit from what I can see and imo it is wrong in that it limits "free choice" to go with another EA etc . OK I agree that during the period of the agreement or parhaps for 4 weeks after .
So they are crooks

googler

sunman wrote: »

So they are crooks

Sorry, don't see your logic - someone following the letter of the law (you've read the legislation) is a 'crook' ?

MrGreenNewForest

Thank you for your post. It sounds as the Estate Agent has used the prescribed terms under the Estate Agency Act and they are correct is what they have told you. When an Estate Agent takes on a property to market they are commiting both money and time into that activity - without any guarantee of a return if the property does not sell. To list a property on Righmove costs money and it costs about £1000 per page to advertise in local papers. If they have introduced a potential buyer and taken them round to view your property it is only fair that they are rewarded if a person introduced by them buys the property.

maninthestreet

MrGreenNewForest wrote: »

Thank you for your post. It sounds as the Estate Agent has used the prescribed terms under the Estate Agency Act and they are correct is what they have told you. When an Estate Agent takes on a property to market they are commiting both money and time into that activity - without any guarantee of a return if the property does not sell. To list a property on Righmove costs money and it costs about £1000 per page to advertise in local papers. If they have introduced a potential buyer and taken them round to view your property it is only fair that they are rewarded if a person introduced by them buys the property.

A court case in the last 18 months or so decided that merely introducing a buyer to a property was not sufficient for an EA to be able to claim the commission for the sale. An EA must introduce the buyer to the actual sale of the property - so whichever EA the buyer submits their offer through is the EA who should receive the
commission.

sunman

MrGreenNewForest wrote: »

Thank you for your post. It sounds as the Estate Agent has used the prescribed terms under the Estate Agency Act and they are correct is what they have told you. When an Estate Agent takes on a property to market they are commiting both money and time into that activity - without any guarantee of a return if the property does not sell. To list a property on Righmove costs money and it costs about £1000 per page to advertise in local papers. If they have introduced a potential buyer and taken them round to view your property it is only fair that they are rewarded if a person introduced by them buys the property.

I agree with you however not the length of the time period after the ending of the sole agreement, this seems to be "open" with no time limited that is my gripe and anger .
Therefore realistically viewer A who viewed at the beginning of the agreement could purchase 1 year later via another EA and the first EA is entitled to a payment -that is wrong and no correct imo.

LandyAndy

sunman wrote: »

I agree with you however not the length of the time period after the ending of the sole agreement, this seems to be "open" with no time limited that is my gripe and anger .
Therefore realistically viewer A who viewed at the beginning of the agreement could purchase 1 year later via another EA and the first EA is entitled to a payment -that is wrong and no correct imo.

Someone buys your property and you pay a commission to the EA who found that buyer. You only pay one commission. What is the problem? It's not as if this isn't known by sellers. It's absolutely standard practice.

Eric1

sunman wrote: »

I agree with you however not the length of the time period after the ending of the sole agreement, this seems to be "open" with no time limited that is my gripe and anger .
Therefore realistically viewer A who viewed at the beginning of the agreement could purchase 1 year later via another EA and the first EA is entitled to a payment -that is wrong and no correct imo.

If you want a time limit introduced, it is likely to have a price. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

sunman

LandyAndy wrote: »

Someone buys your property and you pay a commission to the EA who found that buyer. You only pay one commission. What is the problem? It's not as if this isn't known by sellers. It's absolutely standard practice.

Yes but what about the new EA that I will have appointed they also will have to be paid to .
I have no problems to pay the commission they work for it , however if you end the agreement with EA 1 and appoint EA2 who has better marketing and more pro active -and you sell to a viewer introduced by EA 1 then both EAs have to be paid and that time period is open.
So viewer A could purchase i.e 2 years later and EA 1 will want their payment , that is wrong.

Gwhiz

sunman wrote: »

Yes but what about the new EA that I will have appointed they also will have to be paid to .
I have no problems to pay the commission they work for it , however if you end the agreement with EA 1 and appoint EA2 who has better marketing and more pro active -and you sell to a viewer introduced by EA 1 then both EAs have to be paid and that time period is open.
So viewer A could purchase i.e 2 years later and EA 1 will want their payment , that is wrong.

If you give a list of viewers from your first agent to your new agent and say "if one of these buy you get nothing" then it can all be agreed.

Have to say though you're lack of understanding of the "rules" is no reason to accuse all and sundry of being crooks! Suggest you take a seat and a rest!!!