estate agents are crooks?

Eric1

sunman wrote: »

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

even if introduced, I suspect it will be a long one, to prevent sellers from trying to sell to the same viewer without EA

Henry_P_Chester

estate agents are crooks

Fully agree, I'm yet to meet an honest one.

But I don't really see a problem. TBH I always assumed on such circumstances the fees would be split between the two agents?

Although who's to know who introduced the buyer originally? I viewed a house in January that is still on the Market made and offer which was rejected. The vendor has since changed agents and dropped the price and if he drops a bit more a may consider another offer, but how would EA1(I can't even remember which agent this was!) know they introduced me all that time ago? I'm not going to tell them and the new agent won't know.

sunman

Henry_P_Chester wrote: »

Fully agree, I'm yet to meet an honest one.

But I don't really see a problem. TBH I always assumed on such circumstances the fees would be split between the two agents?

Although who's to know who introduced the buyer originally? I viewed a house in January that is still on the Market made and offer which was rejected. The vendor has since changed agents and dropped the price and if he drops a bit more a may consider another offer, but how would EA1(I can't even remember which agent this was!) know they introduced me all that time ago? I'm not going to tell them and the new agent won't know.

EA1 has a list of viewers and also they keep track of House sales and vendors names. My EA1 told me quite strongly they will want full commission on any sale if the buyer was introduced by them .
Imo it is a farce that no reasonible time limit on this say 3 months.

googler

sunman wrote: »

Imo it is a farce that no reasonible time limit on this say 3 months.

... which opinion still provides no support for your thread title?

peterbaker

googler, I am surprised at you of all people

Whenever I am uncertain about the accuracy of a phrase in common usage, I use Google as the final arbiter.

So for example, if you Google the exact phrase "estate agents are crooks" you get around eleven thousand hits.

Conversely if you Google for "estate agents are not crooks" then you get five i.e. same number as you can count on one hand :rotfl:

Nuff said?

theartfullodger

sunman wrote: »

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?

Any comments? Well, spelling, syntax.... (Yup, that'll come back and bite me...)

I thought the British way was to stick to contracts you'd signed & the law we live under...


Cheers!


Artful

PS Are Estate Agents crooks? Very few (Crooks implies something criminal rather than any civil offence..). Are Estate Agents trustworthy?? I think we know to general view of the Great British public...

steve1980

I worked within the estate agency world for 12 years.

Agent 1 introduces someone to your property whilst you are contracted with them. They are not in a position to buy your home and sit and wait.

You switch to Agent 2 and enter an agreement with them.

Agent 1 calls and says Mr & Mrs X now want to buy your house.

Sale goes through, you pay agent 1 commission and agent 2 doesn't receive a penny.

maninthestreet

steve1980 wrote: »

I worked within the estate agency world for 12 years.

Agent 1 introduces someone to your property whilst you are contracted with them. They are not in a position to buy your home and sit and wait.

You switch to Agent 2 and enter an agreement with them.

Agent 1 calls and says Mr & Mrs X now want to buy your house.

Sale goes through, you pay agent 1 commission and agent 2 doesn't receive a penny.

Incorrect - please refer to the Foxton's case.

steve1980

maninthestreet wrote: »

Incorrect - please refer to the Foxton's case.

Thieving Foxtons tried to claim their multi agency rate (3%) commission, not the sole agency.

To be fair, the story is not a very good example.

sunman

theartfullodger wrote: »

Any comments? Well, spelling, syntax.... (Yup, that'll come back and bite me...)

I thought the British way was to stick to contracts you'd signed & the law we live under...


Cheers!


Artful

PS Are Estate Agents crooks? Very few (Crooks implies something criminal rather than any civil offence..). Are Estate Agents trustworthy?? I think we know to general view of the Great British public...

Esate Agents are "crooks" for having section 18 clause of the 1979 EA Act included when the Act was prepared, clearly with EAs input .