Estate Agent fee; The Property Ombudsman interpretation.

matttye

principlecounts wrote: »

Just to recap, the contract prints as follows:

£ 3000 plus VAT TOTAL £ <empty>

Photographic link: http://postimg.org/image/iaclzgqdz/

Interesting court case about exc. VAT.

http://www.morton-fraser.com/knowledge-hub/exclusive-vat-not-always-enough

This case referred to the fact that in the contract for sale, a special condition which was silent on VAT overrode a standard condition which included VAT. That may or may not apply to you. It certainly doesn't mean that "£xxx exc. VAT" or "£xxx plus VAT" is invalid across the board. In fact, had the contract not included the special condition (or had the special condition made the VAT position clear) the Court of Appeal would undoubtedly have said that VAT is payable.

Does your contract contain a similar special condition which could be said to override the Standard Conditions for Sale?

The case had nothing to do with the "total" being left out and everything to do with the fact that the figure in the special condition was silent on VAT.

I'm not sure if you've misunderstood the case or if you just haven't provided enough information for us to properly consider whether it would apply to your case.

principlecounts

marksoton wrote: »

Well you did. And everyone else's. Ridiculous.

I did not. I made a point. And I'm basically getting given £300 to shut up. Go figure.

principlecounts

matttye wrote: »

This case referred to the fact that in the contract for sale, a special condition which was silent on VAT overrode a standard condition which included VAT. That may or may not apply to you. It certainly doesn't mean that "£xxx exc. VAT" or "£xxx plus VAT" is invalid across the board. In fact, had the contract not included the special condition (or had the special condition made the VAT position clear) the Court of Appeal would undoubtedly have said that VAT is payable.

Does your contract contain a similar special condition which could be said to override the Standard Conditions for Sale?

The case had nothing to do with the "total" being left out and everything to do with the fact that the figure in the special condition was silent on VAT.

I'm not sure if you've misunderstood the case or if you just haven't provided enough information for us to properly consider whether it would apply to your case.

That case was quoted as it was one related to the issue of VAT. I wasn't saying it my exact case. Just related.

I've provided everything here, but the assessment from the TPO did confirm the estate agent was ambiguous in the price. The estate agent, offered an early settlement in response. The TPO suggssted I take the offer since going for the final assessment is uncharted territory and potentially receive nothing.

marksoton

principlecounts wrote: »

I did not. I made a point. And I'm basically getting given £300 to shut up. Go figure.

No, you're being paid £300 to stop litigious costs. A very different thing.

Judging by your sig you rarely enter into a contract in good faith, more to extract funds on this basis for your own gain.

Not something i'd be proud of. Other consumers will bear this cost at some point.

principlecounts

marksoton wrote: »

No, you're being paid £300 to stop litigious costs. A very different thing.

Judging by your sig you rarely enter into a contract in good faith, more to extract funds on this basis for your own gain.

Not something i'd be proud of. Other consumers will bear this cost at some point.

I and I'm sure many others here find that insulting. I dare you to say that to people who have lost time and money from poor customer service. I take no personal gain from any of this, I go out of my way to write solid cases when customer service has been obviously poor. Sadly many companies and bodies make the system time consuming, so folks are not encouraged to enquire a complaint. Therefore simply getting away with breaching their own rules and obligations, despite access to their own lawyers, the layman doesn't stand a chance. I'll give you a classic example, the train companies set aside millions for refunds but hardly anyone who can claim does claim. They design the system purposely difficult so they can fill their greed even further, so the fact consumers will bear the cost for more consumers making successful claims that are rightly theirs is either B.S. or is has ulterior motives. I've claimed every delay I've experienced in the last 9 years of daily train travel, amounting to around £200 to date. Am I cheating other consumers when a system in place allows me to do this? If you don't stand up, who will.

:money:

ReadingTim

principlecounts wrote: »

I and I'm sure many others here find that insulting. I dare you to say that to people who have lost time and money from poor customer service. I take no personal gain from any of this, I go out of my way to write solid cases when customer service has been obviously poor. Sadly many companies and bodies make the system time consuming, so folks are not encouraged to enquire a complaint. Therefore simply getting away with breaching their own rules and obligations, despite access to their own lawyers, the layman doesn't stand a chance. I'll give you a classic example, the train companies set aside millions for refunds but hardly anyone who can claim does claim. They design the system purposely difficult so they can fill their greed even further, so the fact consumers will bear the cost for more consumers making successful claims that are rightly theirs is either B.S. or is has ulterior motives. I've claimed every delay I've experienced in the last 9 years of daily train travel, amounting to around £200 to date. Am I cheating other consumers when a system in place allows me to do this? If you don't stand up, who will.

I don't think it's insulting: I think it's a pretty accurate summary of someone who has been wilfully obtuse in order to extract financial gain, or reduce a legitimate invoice. From the image you posted, it's clear that the sum is ex VAT, so you'd need to include it to get the total. However, rather than query the omission, clarify the amount and pay in good faith, you have chosen the opposite approach.

Furthermore, your attitude towards pursuing customer complaints suggests you know everything about the letter of the law, and nothing about the spirit of the law; actions which will negatively impact other customers as organisations' resources are diverted away from service provision etc to dealing with such frivolous or vexatious complaints and claims.

Miss_Samantha

principlecounts wrote: »

£ 3000 plus VAT TOTAL £ <empty>

There are many cases of dodgy clauses and of companies trying to rip off consumers.
But I don't think that this is one. The wording above is crystal clear to anyone and I can't see the point of arguing that VAT isn't due on top of the £3000.

I'm thinking that perhaps the agent reckoned that he was dealing with someone willing to cause a lot of aggravation and decided that it was better to make him go away at a small cost.

principlecounts

ReadingTim wrote: »

I don't think it's insulting: I think it's a pretty accurate summary of someone who has been wilfully obtuse in order to extract financial gain, or reduce a legitimate invoice. From the image you posted, it's clear that the sum is ex VAT, so you'd need to include it to get the total. However, rather than query the omission, clarify the amount and pay in good faith, you have chosen the opposite approach.

Read this thread from the beginning. I did enquire in an email, so the communication is recorded. I followed this directly at their office, twice! No response until I sent a formal complaint, which breached the TPO code of conduct. The estate agent has signed up to the TPO, so they know their obligations. Secondly, why should I pay in good faith, when it was told to me VAT would not be paid, and I follow up with an enquiry the reason for a higher cost, and to receive no explanation. You tell me who's taking the opposite approach here.

Furthermore, your attitude towards pursuing customer complaints suggests you know everything about the letter of the law, and nothing about the spirit of the law; actions which will negatively impact other customers as organisations' resources are diverted away from service provision etc to dealing with such frivolous or vexatious complaints and claims.

Maybe the estate agent should have been more clear at the beginning than attempting confuse the process, which the TPO agreed with. They follow the TPO charter, I don't.

principlecounts

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

There are many cases of dodgy clauses and of companies trying to rip off consumers.
But I don't think that this is one. The wording above is crystal clear to anyone and I can't see the point of arguing that VAT isn't due on top of the £3000.

I'm thinking that perhaps the agent reckoned that he was dealing with someone willing to cause a lot of aggravation and decided that it was better to make him go away at a small cost.

Saying one thing and then writing another and providing no explanation why this was done is not crystal clear.

I've learnt alot about this industry, I had a lot more to expose than what I've mentioned here, I could have easily taken them to the cleaners. Nothing to with litigation costs. My energy has run out, and I understand why a lot of people hate estate agents, they do a real discredit to the genuine ones out there.