Foul Play/case for legal action

badaz52

Maximised their profits at our expense, let's not forget they offered us £150,000 on a different site in the PX

dotchas

badaz52 wrote: »

PX Agreement terms May 2011:

Our offer is made strictly subject to the following:

1. Your purchase of the TW property at the agreed price shown on the Sales Advise Note with exchange of unconditional contracts within 28 days.

2. Your property being viewed by authorised TW personnel. This may include internal and/or external viewing but you will be notified in advance should access be necessary.

3. A satisfactory homebuyer survey, the surveyor will contact you directly to arrange convenient access.

4. The legal title relating to your property must be to the company's satisfaction. Please ensure that your solicitor calls in all of the necessary documentation (including title deeds) for your property and forwards them to our legal department at the above address within 14 days of acceptance of this offer in order that we may achieve an exchange of contracts within the required time scale.

Should the legal title not meet the company's criteria, we will refund to you just half of your reservation fee. Any other costs incurred by you on the transaction prior to the company excercising this right will be your responsibility.

We have instructed <name of EA> to market <address of property> on our behalf you will be responsible for any fees to date. does this not signify that they are marketing your property using presumably your EA

5. Your permission must be given for reasonable access to your property, by prior arrangement, by our appointed estate agents. This will be necessary in order to prepare sales details for advertising and marketing purposes, to erect their standard "For Sale" board and to allow prospective purchases to view. surely this says they will be conducting viewings prior to your move.i.e. actively marketing the property while you were still the owner

Thrugelmir

badaz52 wrote: »

Is there anything to go off here that could help my case?

From reading the thread, no. As you accepted the terms of the px deal under no duress. Basing your argument on what your neighbour paid for their property has no legal foundation.

GDB2222

On the plus-side, there's nothing in the PX docs to indicate that the OP's contract with his EAs was being brought to an end.

badaz52

I'm just wondering whether to forward this documentation to the EA ombudsman and query whether my contract with the EA ended? I know many of you suggested legal advise but I don't want to pump any money into this if I don't have to.

Hanky_Panky

I haven't read every post on this thread but you have 9 pages where the balance of opinion is against you. Rather than wasting the time of the ombudsman which could be put to better use why not go to see a local solicitor for a free 30 minute consultation who can then give you a legal perspective of whether you actually have a case.

I have to say form what I have read you haven't.

badaz52

Just because what they did may have been legally right does not mean it was actually right. People have been successful with renumeration complaints in the past even when there has been no legal case for complaint.

sonastin

badaz52 wrote: »

Just because what they did may have been legally right does not mean it was actually right. People have been successful with renumeration complaints in the past even when there has been no legal case for complaint.

Not through the courts. Some companies will make a goodwill payment to make you go away. It depends how much you want to push this but if you've not got a solicitor on your side from a business perspective I'd take the chance that you're not going to be a pest for too long.

In summary, my view of this case:

TW did nothing wrong. They negotiated better than you and got a commercial advantage because you blinked first. Their contracts all hold water and they haven't breached any terms of those agreements or any legal requirements.

The EA may be in the wrong. It is not clear whether, by entering into the PX agreement, you have ended the agreement with the EA. The answer to this is not going to be found in any of the contracts you have signed. There are other legal ways to end a contract other than in accordance with the termination provisions and your actions could be judged to amount to ending the contract. This can only be decided by a judge.

IF it is judged that the EA should have forwarded the offer to you as vendor and not TW, you would have to PROVE what you have lost because of his actions. Your neighbours purchase price is helpful in this respect but it is by no means proof that you would also have been able to negotiate that price. Remember that you don't know what TW have on file in relation to both yours and your neighbours purchases. If they do a lot of business with the EA, tehy might be willing to assist the EA in defending your claim. They could show that they had good reason to sell your neighbours property cheap and those reasons don't apply to your purchase so it would cut your argument dead. Add to that the fact that you would have 4% in fees to pay if you were the vendor of your house and the amount you might be out of pocket by because you didn't know you could have sold directly rather than through px starts to dimish quite rapidly.

My verdict is that you might have a case and it is an interesting point of law but there is no more than 50/50 chance that it would succeed. And if it did succeed, the damages you could claim are probably less than you are hoping for. Add to that the fact that you might not be awarded costs and it starts to look like there's not a lot in the pot to claim.

A free 30min consultation with a solicitor will probably tell you the same thing, but perhaps with a slightly different take on the odds or the amount of damages. For peace of mind I think you should see a solicitor but if they tell you what we're telling you, I think you should drop it.

GDB2222

I agree broadly with Sonastin, but I suggest going to the EA's ombudsman. It's cost-free, and you get to see the EA's defence.

badaz52

I'll do that today, as you have all pointed out that the PX agreement does hold water and you have to pay close attention to the terms, you will note that this is the same agreement that was forwarded to the EA that they acted on. My final points on this:

1. The PX agreement does not say that prior EA arrangements must end, or the agreement will bring these to an end (Barratt's PX schemes have this as a clause, TW's do not)

2. It does not say "when" the house will be marketed by them (we assumed it would be once they owned it) again as an example Barratt's PX schemes have this as a clause, TW's do not

3. It does say they will use the same EA as us but again, we thought this would be just to help them as the EA already has introduced people to the property (they are free to use whoever they want, obviously in their best interest to use the same EA as that EA is familiar with the property and had already introduced people)

And the EA agreement says:

1. Running contract, not a fixed term.

2. Termination must be in writing within 21 days of first notification. PX agreement does not help their cause and it does not state it terminates prior arrangements. We did not end a contract in writing.

3. Introducing TW to the EA by means of a PX offer would not be construde as a breach of contract or a sale outside the contract as the EA still got the fees, TW were referred to the EA, mine and TW's agreement over who covers the cost of the fees is irrelevant to the EA.