2 Estate Agents claiming sellers fees

kinger101

Annie1960 wrote: »

The EA does still have a valid contract to continue the process of selling to anyone they introduced while the contract was originally in force. This contract lasts for 6 months beyond the termination date.

Don't take my word for it, go and check it out on the Ombudsman's website.

Edit: The Ombudsman places the responsibility on the second agent to explain this to the vendor.

The Property Ombudsman's (TPO) code of practice is only relevant where the estate agent is member of the TPO. This isn't statute. Also, the guidelines place the onus on EA1 to instruct client of any ongoing liabilities at the termination of the contract.

I think the next steps are;

(a) finding out from purchaser whether the sale resulted from actions of EA1 or EA2 (because case law trumps any "code of practice").
(b) If this was EA1 (and EA1 are a member of TPO), find out whether EA1 complied with 3q and 3r of TPO code.

kinger101

googler wrote: »

The ombudsman website doesn't define any agent's contract for them. A provision in EA1's contract that they wish to claim a fee if the OP sells to someone introduced by them is not the same as having a valid contract to accept an offer, and continue to act for the seller thereafter. EA1 would have stopped marketing the property, too, because they no longer have any selling rights.

This isn't true. If EA1's introduction resulted in the offer, then they have a claim to the fee . The key here is how this played out for the purchaser. An introduction can be something as trivial as showing a flyer, or something much more involved (showing someone around the property and convincing them to buy). The question, did EA1's or EA2's actions result in the offer?

Annie1960

kinger101 wrote: »

The Property Ombudsman's (TPO) code of practice is only relevant where the estate agent is member of the TPO. This isn't statute.

EAs are required by law to belong to either TPOS or the other one, Ombudsman Services (Property).

Both of these are based on the same consumer law. The TPOS website, in my view, sets out the position more clearly, which is why I prefer that site. However, it doesn't really matter which Ombudsman scheme the EA belongs to, the underpinning legislation is the same.

moneyistooshorttomention

wendyrobson wrote: »

Both agents new I was changing but None ever suggested a list. I did specifically tell agent 2 not to allow viewings to anyone who agent 1 had shown, .

Have you kept a record of that instruction of yours in writing? (whether it be by letter or email).

In that position, I would have instructed in writing both ways (and kept my proof I had done so) and then told agent 2 I had this proof and they had gone against my specific instructions and they could whistle, as it was their inefficiency that they didn't abide by my instruction.

If they still push it, you have all the proof you need if they start hinting at a small claims court to get this money out of you. Show the judge the proof and hopefully justice would be done, but I doubt EA 2 would go that far (as it would take too much of their time to chase YOU for THEIR mistake). They were the ones that allowed those viewings against your specific instructions, so they carry that can and not you.

I'd say EA 2 know they were inefficient (maybe left hand not telling right hand??) and its a try-on by them.

googler

Annie1960 wrote: »

EAs are required by law to belong to either TPOS or the other one, Ombudsman Services (Property).

Both of these are based on the same consumer law. The TPOS website, in my view, sets out the position more clearly, which is why I prefer that site. However, it doesn't really matter which Ombudsman scheme the EA belongs to, the underpinning legislation is the same.

The codes of practice aren't any form of legislation. Can you point to any real legislation that applies in this case?

Annie1960

kinger101 wrote: »

The Property Ombudsman's (TPO) code of practice is only relevant where the estate agent is member of the TPO. This isn't statute.

EAs are required by law to belong to either TPOS or the other one, Ombudsman Services (Property).

Both of these are based on the same consumer law. The TPOS website, in my view, sets out the position more clearly, which is why I prefer that site. However, it doesn't really matter which Ombudsman scheme the EA belongs to, the underpinning legislation is the same.

wendyrobson

No sadly my instruction was only verbal. Being a lay person only trying to sell a house I didn,t expect to be trussed up like a turkey......

Annie1960

wendyrobson wrote: »

No sadly my instruction was only verbal. Being a lay person only trying to sell a house I didn,t expect to be trussed up like a turkey......

I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying you did not have a signed contract with either of the EAs?

googler

Annie1960 wrote: »

EAs are required by law to belong to either TPOS or the other one, Ombudsman Services (Property).

>>> but that doesn't make the codes of practice the law.....

Both of these are based on the same consumer law. The TPOS website, in my view, sets out the position more clearly, which is why I prefer that site. However, it doesn't really matter which Ombudsman scheme the EA belongs to, the underpinning legislation is the same.

Which legislation?

ethank

I think that the Foxton v Hampton's case decided that EA1 had to have effectively caused a sale than introduced them to the property.

I would speak to EA2 and ask them to contact EA1 to resolve a mess that they should have done.