Estate Agent Issues

LizzieL

Help! We're having an issue with estate agents and I've been reading this forum for ages and thought someone might be able to offer advice, or more helpfully indicate what the rules are.

Now when I say we, it's my parents house, I live with them and am moving with them, unfortunately this means I get all the hassle without being given much of a voice when it comes to decision making!

So the issue is: we signed with one estate agent, weren't happy with their service and cancelled the contract. We asked for the list of people they introduced because the next estate agent said they would then not try to claim from anyone on that list.

An aside issue is that EA1 obviously didn't read what they sent us because its given us proof that they withheld an offer and then tried to lie about their contact with us.

Now back to the real issue, EA2 phoned yesterday with a viewing, my dad recognised the name and it turns out the person was on the list from EA1 but had never had a viewing. Spoke to EA1 and they said they wanted a viewing but never got back to them with a time or date and that if they made an offer they would claim their fee.

Spoke to EA2 and they said because in the list it doesn't mention a viewing they don't consider that an introduction and would claim their fee.

Obviously they haven't offered and probably wont but the stress is getting to me so does anyone know who has a rightful claim (should point out EA2 has a clause about being owed their fee if they take part in negotiations) to the fee?

And thank you to anyone that managed to still care enough to carry on reading to the end of this lengthy post!

nomoneytoday

I would let the agents argue it between themselves - although if the buyer is on the list then the commission will no doubt end up with EA1

MissMotivation

I think we need a bit more information here.....

You say that your Parents cancelled the contract? Were they still within the Sole Agency period or had this expired?

The list that EA1 provided to EA2 was that a list viewers or just people that they had sent details to?

MissMotivation

nomoneytoday wrote: »

I would let the agents argue it between themselves - although if the buyer is on the list then the commission will no doubt end up with EA1

The contracts are between the Seller and the two EA's, not between the two EA's....bad advice!

DVardysShadow

It is a delicate matter. I would take the viewing and discuss with this viewer how come they did not view with EA1. If viewer maintains EA1 was obstructive, then let them go to offer if they are so minded, but you should consider asking them at that stage for a written statement of why they did not view. If EA1 is right and they did not get back, then the price to this particular viewer has to go up to cover the additional EA fees.

LizzieL

MissMotivation wrote: »

I think we need a bit more information here.....

You say that your Parents cancelled the contract? Were they still within the Sole Agency period or had this expired?

The list that EA1 provided to EA2 was that a list viewers or just people that they had sent details to?

The Sole Agency period had expired and they had their full two weeks notice (actually just over as they were awkward about taking the details down).

This list was people that had viewed, with their feedback and two with cancelled beside them where they didn't go ahead with viewings.

DVardysShadow wrote: »

It is a delicate matter. I would take the viewing and discuss with this viewer how come they did not view with EA1. If viewer maintains EA1 was obstructive, then let them go to offer if they are so minded, but you should consider asking them at that stage for a written statement of why they did not view. If EA1 is right and they did not get back, then the price to this particular viewer has to go up to cover the additional EA fees.

It's just frustrating that all the way along EA1 have acted badly, and according to EA2 illegally, they were sending round people who admitted they hadn't even had their house valued yet and then lied about why the people weren't offering, withheld at least one offer that we know of and now might be entitled to their fee.
What makes it worse is that they didn't do the viewings themselves so their input has literally been the marketing then a few phonecalls most of which was bull anyway.

And without wanting to give too many details it's a nice house in a nice area so the fees aren't exactly small change.
They've already decided that any offer would need to be enough to cover both sets of fees it's just maddening that people can be so useless and still make money!

MissMotivation

If EA1 are saying that they have introduced this viewer then they will be entitled to their fee.

EA2 should have spotted that they were on the list and referrred them back to EA1

Just out of interest, why did EA1 withhold an offer??

LizzieL

MissMotivation wrote: »

If EA1 are saying that they have introduced this viewer then they will be entitled to their fee.

EA2 should have spotted that they were on the list and referrred them back to EA1

Just out of interest, why did EA1 withhold an offer??

EA2 are saying they did know they were on the list but because they didn't actually have a viewing it doesn't count, even though verbally the EA who part owns the company said "anyone on the list"

When we got the list through there was a note beside one talking about an offer or negotiations, I can't remember the wording, and about the vendor rejecting it, my dad phoned to query it because obviously that conversation never happened EA went away to find out and phoned back a few hours later.
He said someone in another office had taken the call and phoned the main branch to ask whether the money being talked about was acceptable, the EA in this branch said no it was too low and that the house should go for nearer the asking price and that they never passed it on because it was too low an offer.

We had never given them any instructions to withhold offers under a certain amount.

holly_hobby

EAs have a duty to pass on all offers to the Vendor (unless, as discussed, you have given them a reserve, under which you have requested that they don't bother you with the phone call, or given them direct authority to accept/delince offers by proxy/on your behalf). Although the main role is to achieve the best price they can on behalf of the Vendor.

Withholding offers for reasons that benefit the est agt or preferential buyers they have on their books (i.e known builders/developers with whom the branch has a relationship) is clearly against NAEA practice (which doesn't seem to be the case in hand).

I do think, at best with regards to the withholding/rejection of offer at branch level - (rather than admit any underhand motive - if there was one) your est agent will apologise stating that they had obv made an error in that it was their understanding that the vendors instructionse/requirement/indications were to reject any perceived derisory offers out of hand. (but you do have grounds for compliant and a revised fee)

EA2 stating EA1 have acted illegally in not qualifying viewers is utter tosh ... it may be v poor practice (and timewasting to the vendor), but its certainly not illegal.


IMHO - If EA 1 sent the individual round (who just didn't bother offering at that stage), then I believe it may be argued its an introduction of EA1

Similarly, if EA1 marketed the property, and it was solely through the marketing of EA1, that the purchaser learned of your property being on the market, demonstrating sufficient interest to go as far as making a viewing appt (albeit he didn't attend) - then to me his interest is as a direct result of the marketing/introduction activities of EA1.

So if the guy offers - really I would suggest that it is technically EA1 thats owed the commission (not withstanding your disute with them which we obv have some affect on this)

However, if the guy only became aware of your property solely through the marketing activity of EA2, then its naturally their catch & they get the bounty.

Hope this helps

H

LizzieL

holly_hobby wrote: »

EAs have a duty to pass on all offers to the Vendor (unless, as discussed, you have given them a reserve, under which you have requested that they don't bother you with the phone call).

IMHO - If EA 1 sent the individual round (who just didn't bother offering at that stage), then I believe it may be argued its an introduction of EA1

Similarly, if EA1 marketed the property, and it was solely through the marketing of EA1, that the purchaser learned of your property being on the market, demonstrating sufficient interest to go as far as making a viewing appt (albeity didn't attend) - then to me his interest is as a direct result of the marketing/introduction activities of EA1.

So if the guy offers - really I would suggest that it is technically EA1 thats owed the commission (not withstanding your disute with them which we obv have some affect on this)

However, if the guy only became aware of your property solely through the marketing activity of EA2, then its naturally their catch & they get the bounty.

Hope this helps

H

Thanks, I am agreement in as much as I said they obviously became aware of the house through EA1s marketing, the trouble is we were never told any of this and the piece of paper has a date and time under the appointment section which I think they did as a holding point (there were two like it, one appointment was 12pm and one was midnight)
But the EA said over the phone that they never actually made an appointment.

Now we know he's told us that the appointment never existed but knowing it and proving it are two different things and they've already proved they're not exactly ethical (I mean more so than most EAs!)
It's stupid that it's got the point that I kind of hope they don't make an offer just to avoid all the hassle.

I think as much as anything I'm slightly irritated that my dad refuses to make an official complaint about the way they've acted so far.
Still it's all hypothetical at the moment, I just get very stressed very easily!

Just saw your edit, it wasn't the time-wasters that EA2 said was illegal, it was the withholding of the offer.

holly_hobby

What does the actual potential purchaser say ?

What Agt does he say instigated his interest ? (IMHO its not if he actually attended the viewing - its WHO first introduced him to the property with evidence to the same of course)

Has he actually offered, because (without wishing to be blunt) this is all a bit academic if he isn't interested in making an offer ..

H