estate agents are crooks?

LandyAndy

Gwhiz wrote: »

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!!!

Exactly.

Get EA1 to provide a written list of viewers they believe they have introduced and give it to EA2.

Again standard practice when changing EAs.

LandyAndy

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.

What is wrong appears to be your grasp of how these things are done.:(

sunman

LandyAndy wrote: »

Exactly.

Get EA1 to provide a written list of viewers they believe they have introduced and give it to EA2.

Again standard practice when changing EAs.

Thank you all good idea regards the list , however it is still not correct that there is no set time limit after the end of sole agency agreement.

LandyAndy

sunman wrote: »

Thank you all good idea regards the list , however it is still not correct that there is no set time limit after the end of sole agency agreement.

Why? What difference does it make to you as long your position is safeguarded in respect of only paying one commission?

sunman

LandyAndy wrote: »

Why? What difference does it make to you as long your position is safeguarded in respect of only paying one commission?

It gives EA the virtual "ownership" of a viewer which is not correct, what if the new EA has to do work and cost with a viewer and if this viewer buys he gets nothing so he is not going to do any work re that viewer .

maninthestreet

http://www.propertyweek.com/foxtons-commission-case-loss-brings-clarity/3112613.article

LandyAndy

sunman wrote: »

It gives EA the virtual "ownership" of a viewer which is not correct, what if the new EA has to do work and cost with a viewer and if this viewer buys he gets nothing so he is not going to do any work re that viewer .

Err, no. If EA2 knows that a person is not going to earn him commission then he will simply say to that person 'I cannot deal with you, you should deal with the EA1'.

I do think you are trying to make something out of nothing here.

sunman

LandyAndy wrote: »

Err, no. If EA2 knows that a person is not going to earn him commission then he will simply say to that person 'I cannot deal with you, you should deal with the EA1'.

I do think you are trying to make something out of nothing here.

Yes however EA1 is officially not your agent = confusion , there needs to be a time limit after the ending of an agreement.

googler

sunman wrote: »

Yes however EA1 is officially not your agent = confusion , there needs to be a time limit after the ending of an agreement.

So at the end of the day the substance of your thread is

"I want a change to the existing legislation" ???

sonastin

My interpretation of the judgment in the Foxton case is that if the EA doesn't put a reasonable time limit into the contract, the courts are likely to imply one. In the Foxton case, the time between the first "introduction" and the subsequent offer was long enough to make it unlikely that the purchaser had purchased the property as a result of Foxton's activities so it was deemed unfair for Foxton's to claim their commission. I believe the judge held a similar opinion as the OP that an EA couldn't stake a claim on a potential purchaser's interest for eternity. However, if the contract had included a time limit, I think that the judgment would have been "well thats what you signed up to; you should have checked who had been introduced by Foxtons", although I am not aware of this being tested in the courts as yet.