Estate Agent 'Introduction' and Commission

The_Palmist

MissMotivation wrote: »

I don't understand why you think it's acceptable to to try and avoid paying the EA their fee? You have freely admitted the Purchaser found your house by way of the EA's advertising.

The EA would have incurred costs in finding this buyer for you so it's unacceptable for you to try and get out of paying them.

I'm all for saving money but this is below the belt.

And before anyone jumps in with "well you're an EA you would say that" I suggest you read Moneybunny's thread where the agent WASN'T entitled to their fee and I advised her not to pay it.

I agree and is there a reason why there's no thanks tab on your comment.

googler

The Thanks tab will only be there on other posts if you're logged in..... so should have appeared now that you've posted?

MissMotivation

The_Palmist wrote: »

I agree and is there a reason why there's no thanks tab on your comment.

I think, as an EA, we are not allowed to be thanked on this board

chopper78

OK, lets put a slight slant on this. Imagine the OP had two agencies acting for him and this person came in off the street (i.e. not booking a viewing with either of the EAs) to view and put in an offer directly.

Should one of the agencies at random be paid commission? Both? Neither?

MissMotivation

chopper78 wrote: »

OK, lets put a slight slant on this. Imagine the OP had two agencies acting for him and this person came in off the street (i.e. not booking a viewing with either of the EAs) to view and put in an offer directly.

Should one of the agencies at random be paid commission? Both? Neither?

Well, first of all, you can't have two agents working on a "sole selling rights" basis.

The Vendor would have to have a multi agency agreement but if it could not be determined which agents advertising drew the buyers attention to the property then the easiest way to deal with it would be for agents to split the fee 50/50

MHawk01

I began this thread not to be judged on my motives - I was simply interested in facts and seeking opinions on the matter at hand from those who may be more in the know than me.

Yes the circumstances of the case I quoted were different to mine. The point that caught my interest was the findings of the judges - who decreed that the agent had to both introduce the buyer to the property AND the sale. The latter condition has not been met which is why I was enquiring.

This led me to believe that such a judgement could/ would be applied in any such legal wrangles.

But as i have now pointed out it seems that my particular contract covers the situation I have outlined and I will have to pay up (if they find out). Fair enough - I entered into this agreement and will have to abide by it.

From an ethical point of view - yes, I would agree that in my case it would be right for me to pay a marketing cost (which should be less than the total commission agreed with the agent up front). I do not however see why I should pay for their services with regards to agreeing a sale with the buyer as this is a feat that I have accomplished myself.

If negotiations had been conducted by my agent then I do not believe I would have been able to achieve the same sale price that I have agreed with the buyer. I was able to 'sell' my property and agree a price as a result of my own negotiating skills, having a direct dialogue and establishing a good relationship with the buyer that would not have been possible otherwise.

Do we really believe that EA's had such moral concerns back when times were 'good'? This is all about the bottom line as far as I'm concerned - cold hard cash without sentiment for struggling agents. After all is that not the motive for any and all EA's? :money:

MissMotivation

kee2011_uk wrote: »

So Estate agents have done their best to absolutely screw the average house holder out of every single penny, and someone looking to finally see something out of it is apparently "scummy"?

Jesus, some of you have very big opinions of yourselves. I've read this forum for a few weeks now, and it has to be said. Some of you appear to be a little twitchy. Your !!!! on the line because of the recession is it?

Grow up and provide some constructive feedback.

So you consider this, your first post, to be constructive?

Perhaps the phrase 'Practice what you preach' is appropriate here?

MissMotivation

MHawk01 wrote: »

I began this thread not to be judged on my motives - I was simply interested in facts and seeking opinions on the matter at hand from those who may be more in the know than me.

Yes the circumstances of the case I quoted were different to mine. The point that caught my interest was the findings of the judges - who decreed that the agent had to both introduce the buyer to the property AND the sale. The latter condition has not been met which is why I was enquiring.

This led me to believe that such a judgement could/ would be applied in any such legal wrangles.

But as i have now pointed out it seems that my particular contract covers the situation I have outlined and I will have to pay up (if they find out). Fair enough - I entered into this agreement and will have to abide by it.

From an ethical point of view - yes, I would agree that in my case it would be right for me to pay a marketing cost (which should be less than the total commission agreed with the agent up front). I do not however see why I should pay for their services with regards to agreeing a sale with the buyer as this is a feat that I have accomplished myself.

If negotiations had been conducted by my agent then I do not believe I would have been able to achieve the same sale price that I have agreed with the buyer. I was able to 'sell' my property and agree a price as a result of my own negotiating skills, having a direct dialogue and establishing a good relationship with the buyer that would not have been possible otherwise.

Do we really believe that EA's had such moral concerns back when times were 'good'? This is all about the bottom line as far as I'm concerned - cold hard cash without sentiment for struggling agents. After all is that not the motive for any and all EA's? :money:

You entered a legally binding agreement when you first went onto the market which obligated you to pay the EA's fees should they find you a buyer. If you were unhappy with this agreement then you should not have signed and then marketed the property yourself, for free.

This isn't about morals or 'bottom line' it's about paying someone what they are entitled to. It's all very well you trying to take the moral high ground now but it's YOU that it is in the the wrong here.

kingstreet

MHawk01 wrote: »

If negotiations had been conducted by my agent then I do not believe I would have been able to achieve the same sale price that I have agreed with the buyer

We'll never know if that is truly the case. I would recommend to anyone who receives a knock on the door to refer the enquirer to the agent as the commission will almost certainly be payable and if you are going to pay, you might as well get the full service to get value for money.

Gwhiz

kee2011_uk wrote: »

Anyone got a password so I can join the forum's clique?

Added to this: I am bemused at some of the responses in this forum. The man was looking for a confirmed answer and not some moral lambasting by a bunch of hormonal teenagers. If he wanted drama he'd have gone on This Morning and had a chat with Scofe.

Ironic really, seeing as though the most defensive ones (seemingly the ones with their backsides hanging on the edge of redundancy) will presumably be keen watchers of that programme in the future.

The OP did not appear to want a favoured answer, and in the end as he explained clearly found the answer he was looking for in the stated terms of the contract. So apart from the GM chap, the rest of you have forced me to drop to the very bottom of the barrel and explain this. Hi to all at the bottom of the barrel btw.

P.S I hope EA's FIFA 12 lives up to it's expectations. Clubs was horrendous last year.

He didn't need to ask the Q though did he? It was obvious what the right thing to do was. He was simply trying to see if he could get away without paying and you know it.

Oh, by the way, no password needed - just a decent set of morals gets you in.