Estate Agents fees - is the withdrawal fee reasonable?

taxsaver

DVardysShadow wrote: »

without prejudice in full and final settlement

If you include 'without prejudice' in the letter then NEITHER party can rely on it in any court proceedings so little is achieved.

I'm with others here and say that you do NOT need to pay them anything. The onus will be on them to prove the 'reasonableness' of their fee I think and I struggle to imagine that any person would see it as such.

DVardysShadow

taxsaver wrote: »

If you include 'without prejudice' in the letter then NEITHER party can rely on it in any court proceedings so little is achieved.

You don't really understand the point of 'without prejudice'.

As I see it, you certainly could wave the letter in court and say 'we have tried to negotiate'. Such a letter would be very relevant to the matter of costs in a court case if the court awarded less than the amount offered. What you achieve by writing 'without prejudice' is that the offer itself cannot be relied on by the other side as an admission that any money is due.

The whole idea of a 'without prejudice' offer is to achieve a settlement without going to court. You need to communicate in order to achieve a settlement, but in communicating, 'without prejudice' is needed to avoid making the content admissible as evidence should negotiations fail. If the offer is accepted, of course it is 'full and final', so the letter would become admissible if the settlement amount was accepted and the other side went to court for another bite at the cherry.

hazyjo

Ridiculous. Don't pay them a penny. Was going to suggest what a couple of others have said - increase the price - double it, even, and let it sit on their books until they're prepared to let you out of the contract.

Or name and shame. I bet they have google alerts set up, or others googling them might find the thread.

"if we deem it appropriate we will charge a fee” - GRRR winds me up every time I read it. Mind you, you did sign it...

Jx

kimbo26

i would become a differcult vendor, up the asking price, dont answer any correspondance, reject any offers/viewing and they will soon disinstruct you. cant look good for them having a house that has been on that long and not sold.

taxsaver

DVardysShadow wrote: »

You don't really understand the point of 'without prejudice'.

As I see it, you certainly could wave the letter in court and say 'we have tried to negotiate'. Such a letter would be very relevant to the matter of costs in a court case if the court awarded less than the amount offered. What you achieve by writing 'without prejudice' is that the offer itself cannot be relied on by the other side as an admission that any money is due.

The whole idea of a 'without prejudice' offer is to achieve a settlement without going to court. You need to communicate in order to achieve a settlement, but in communicating, 'without prejudice' is needed to avoid making the content admissible as evidence should negotiations fail. If the offer is accepted, of course it is 'full and final', so the letter would become admissible if the settlement amount was accepted and the other side went to court for another bite at the cherry.

I think it is you that needs to glean a better understanding of the rule. Indeed your post even contains contradictions within it.

However, I have no wish to engage in a discussion that will distract from the OP's question so will say no more on the subject, even if you respond further.

cjmumto2

Ridiculous I would not pay, tel lthem you are seeking legal advice. I cant believe that wording is even legal

googler

Financial_Savvy wrote: »

Seriously you can't market a property for 3 years. I think you will find you have to renew the marketing every 6 months to comply to the Property Misdescriptions Act??

Perhaps you could tell us which bit of the Prop Mis Act specifies this?

And what do you mean by 'renew the marketing'?

googler

Czechcow wrote: »

I put my house on the market in October 2007 at an agreed price with an estate agent. Not a lot appears to have happened since then, a few viewings, one offer £65,000 below the asking price of £340,000 which was refused, and I have reduced the price asking price once, although the agents have asked a few times to drop it more.

In the words of a previous poster - am I reading this right? The asking price in Oct 2007 was £340k, and since then your agent has tried a few times to get you to re-price it in accordance with the way he sees the market in your area, and you haven't changed the price? You are aware that house prices are not at the same level as late 2007, aren't you?

There's people on this forum who would class you as an 'unrealistic seller'.

Given that you've taken away the agent's only chance of earning their fee (which would have been payable on a sale), and they've been under contract to you for 3.5 years, on your apparently unreasonable pricing instruction, and with your refusal to take their advice on what would be realistic pricing, what would you say is a fair withdrawal fee? What would you say their expenses have been over those 3.5 years? If they don''t defray some or all of those expenses, what will they have to charge the next seller to make up their losses?

DVardysShadow

googler wrote: »

In the words of a previous poster - am I reading this right? The asking price in Oct 2007 was £340k, and since then your agent has tried a few times to get you to re-price it in accordance with the way he sees the market in your area, and you haven't changed the price? You are aware that house prices are not at the same level as late 2007, aren't you?

There's people on this forum who would class you as an 'unrealistic seller'.

Given that you've taken away the agent's only chance of earning their fee (which would have been payable on a sale), and they've been under contract to you for 3.5 years, on your apparently unreasonable pricing instruction, and with your refusal to take their advice on what would be realistic pricing, what would you say is a fair withdrawal fee? What would you say their expenses have been over those 3.5 years? If they don''t defray some or all of those expenses, what will they have to charge the next seller to make up their losses?

I think you make a fair point, but bear in mind that the initial asking price would have been set in conjunction with the agent. And being professionals, they should have known it was unrealistic, so they should have refused the instruction if the outcome was going to be no sale. This is under a duty of care to their client, not to incur unnecessary charges. But it seems they set an unrealistic asking price, knowing they could charge a substantial termination fee.

OP's biggest failing here was not to scrutinise the contract and envisage the consequences of not selling, given the no sale fee. This should have been clarified and agreed at the outset.

haras_nosirrah

If the op hasn't reduced their price since 2007 the offer that was 65k under asking was probably about right. The market has dropped 20% after all. They will never get a buyer at the price they want so no point leaving it on the market.