Sacking Estate Agent - Understanding the contract

Windsorcastle

googler wrote: »

Why is it 'ludicrous'? Have you done the math on how much it costs?

Googler, we all understand by now that you're a high street EA who feels that your livelihood is threatened by people spreading the word that online agents are the way forward and that greedy EAs are soon going to get their ars*s kicked into touch and not before time! It is blatantly obvious that high street agents' fees are ludicrous as they operate on a flat fee that does not take into account the amount of time and work involved in achieving a sale. In the OP's case, the EA was telling them (whether true or not) that they had secured a buyer before the OP had even signed the contract - how then can the EA justify charging them the same fee as they would have if it had taken 12 weeks of time and effort to find a buyer? That is one of the many reasons why high street agents' charges are ludicrous.

If an online agent can provide the same (if not better) service for on average a quarter of the cost, doesn't that tell you it's ludicrous? Traditional EAs have had things their greedy way for far too long and now online agents are going to wipe the floor with them. No point in crying over it - maybe you should join an online agency rather that continue to try to defend your increasingly weak position...

googler

Windsorcastle wrote: »

It is blatantly obvious that high street agents' fees are ludicrous as they operate on a flat fee that does not take into account the amount of time and work involved in achieving a sale. In the OP's case, the EA was telling them (whether true or not) that they had secured a buyer before the OP had even signed the contract - how then can the EA justify charging them the same fee as they would have if it had taken 12 weeks of time and effort to find a buyer?

Would you pay the EA a higher fee the longer the property is on the market? For that seems to be what you suggest - for example, £100 fee if it sells in week 1, £1200 if it sells in week 12, £2600 in week 26?

Dan-Dan

googler wrote: »

Would you pay the EA a higher fee the longer the property is on the market? For that seems to be what you suggest - for example, £100 fee if it sells in week 1, £1200 if it sells in week 12, £2600 in week 26?

This could work....assuming the fee starts really LOW !!

googler

Dan-Dan wrote: »

This could work....assuming the fee starts really LOW !!

So you would incentivise the EA to leave your property on the market for ages? Not to sell it quickly?

Dan-Dan

googler wrote: »

So you would incentivise the EA to leave your property on the market for ages? Not to sell it quickly?

Exactly!!!

So the original fee (in many cases) is LUDICROUS

Windsorcastle

googler wrote: »

Would you pay the EA a higher fee the longer the property is on the market? For that seems to be what you suggest - for example, £100 fee if it sells in week 1, £1200 if it sells in week 12, £2600 in week 26?

I would possibly pay a sliding fee the other way; so the fee decreases the longer the property is on the market. That might incentivise the EA to shift it, although I suspect EAs would then put vendors under increasing pressure to drop their price too soon.

googler

Windsorcastle wrote: »

I would possibly pay a sliding fee the other way; so the fee decreases the longer the property is on the market. That might incentivise the EA to shift it

...but that's the exact opposite of what you proposed earlier;

"In the OP's case, the EA was telling them (whether true or not) that they had secured a buyer before the OP had even signed the contract - how then can the EA justify charging them the same fee as they would have if it had taken 12 weeks of time and effort to find a buyer? "


You say that the EA can't justify the same fee in a short selling time as they could over a longer selling time - if you weren't suggesting a lower fee for a shorter selling time, what were you suggesting here?

Windsorcastle

googler wrote: »

...but that's the exact opposite of what you proposed earlier;

"In the OP's case, the EA was telling them (whether true or not) that they had secured a buyer before the OP had even signed the contract - how then can the EA justify charging them the same fee as they would have if it had taken 12 weeks of time and effort to find a buyer? "


You say that the EA can't justify the same fee in a short selling time as they could over a longer selling time - if you weren't suggesting a lower fee for a shorter selling time, what were you suggesting here?

I was saying that I might be more inclined to use a high street agent if they had a sliding scale of charges; however their current starting point is far too high and unreasonable, so what you are suggesting is purely conjecture. If they started off wanting 2%, I would still think that was too high. As it is, I would never use a high street agent again, having used House Network for my recent sale and found them to be fantastic. There was no compromise on the service offered, I had 2 offers within 3 weeks on the market, and I saved over £3000 on what the high street agents were asking. I would strongly advise anyone about to sell to use an online agent and see for themselves. There are several online agents getting strong recommendations on MSE and I have seen very few criticisms of them.

You obviously get very upset trying to defend the high street EA's trade, but I think you're fighting a losing battle.

Mattygroves2

I wouldn't write off high street estate agents just yet the good ones provide a service that can't be replicated online.

I was in the market for a flat two years ago and as well as looking on rightmove I developed relationships with a couple of estate agents that seemed to deal with the type of flats I was considering. As a result I was offered the chance to view one before it came fully onto the market and bought it fairly quickly. So the vendor got a very quick sale and saved the hassle of keeping the flat tidy for weeks on end waiting for a buyer.

If I hadn't built the relationship with the estate agent and they'd taken the trouble to work out what I actually wanted by listening to my feedback about the three flats they'd shown me round previously I doubt I'd have looked at the flat as it didn't tick all my original boxes. However, I trusted them when they said I should look at it and it has many qualities that outweigh the negatives that are there. There is no way an online estate agent could have done that.

john_white

Windsorcastle wrote: »

There is no obligation on anyone to use an EA who has done a valuation, and any sensible person would get 3 valuations so some of the agents are going to be 'wasting their time' as you put it. It's part of the job. It's ludicrous to suggest this raises their extortionate fees. When I got my local agents round to value, I would have been happy to use one of them if they hadn't all been so greedy, looking for a 2% fee. I even tried to negotiate this down with my preferred EA and he was having none of it. Hence why I turned to House Network. And thank god I did. Brilliant service for a fraction of the place, and decent professional people too, not like my local wide boys. High street agents will be defunct within 10 years and good riddance to them!

Your 'advice' to me when I asked about the valuation for using HN was to get 3 local EA's round. Surely that is wasting their time as I'd have no intention of using any of them.

Put it another way. 10 sellers use 3 EA's for valuations, none have any intention of using said EA's that's a couple of days work with no chance of receiving any income. It will all add up.

I've not said the fee's are fair, but I have never paid more than 1.25% but that will be down to location.

My last place had neighbour issues and I didn't think that scenario would work well using an online agent. My current house, well, popular area, everything selling quickly. Online makes sense. But it's about the valuation I have issues.