Estate Agent Charging Us for Failing to Sell House

Winter_Phoenix

This webpage is worth reading:
http://hoa.org.uk/services/ask-an-expert-2/ask-an-expert-i-am-selling-questions/if-i-switch-estate-agents-will-i-still-have-to-pay-commission-to-my-old-one/

It specifically mentions the Foxton's case:
"In the case of Foxtons vs Hamptons (2008), for example, it was ruled that the fact that an Estate Agent might have first shown the property to a future purchaser, does not automatically entitle the Estate Agent to commission on the purchase. It was found that the Estate Agent must be the effective cause of the purchase (i.e. put in the greater amount of effort in to the sale) to win the commission."

Edited to add: Oops! Didn't see Jaybeetoo's posting before I posted this!

eddddy

Winter_Phoenix wrote: »

It specifically mentions the Foxton's case:
"In the case of Foxtons vs Hamptons (2008), for example, it was ruled that the fact that an Estate Agent might have first shown the property to a future purchaser, does not automatically entitle the Estate Agent to commission on the purchase. It was found that the Estate Agent must be the effective cause of the purchase (i.e. put in the greater amount of effort in to the sale) to win the commission."

The OP's case is very, very different from the Foxton's case.

In the OP's case, a couple viewed the house, made an offer, the offer was accepted, then they withdrew the offer whilst they sorted out their finances.

The couple then 'came back' once their finances were in order, and resubmitted their offer.

In this case, I think any judge would say the first EA's efforts were an effective cause of the purchase.

xxxnardixxx

Hi. Seems quite unfair that 1st ea demanding full amount without doing actual work. Maybe try come to some sort of agreement with them?

kinger101

xxxnardixxx wrote: »

Hi. Seems quite unfair that 1st ea demanding full amount without doing actual work. Maybe try come to some sort of agreement with them?

Errr......I wouldn't call marketing the property and finding the actual buyer "no work".

Shahni

normal wrote: »

A quick related question then. If we had legal advice cover via our home insurance at the time of the sale and for a period after, but no longer have that policy (as we're no longer in the UK), would we still be able to contact the legal helpline for advice?

It's a bit tricky trying to get the advice when we're abroad and obviously a free telephone legal advice helpline is very attractive.

Technically not, but handy tip: I used to work for a firm which provided the '24-hour legal helpline' for insurance customers in the hours when the insurer was closed. If you call the insurance legal helpline out of office hours chances are you'll be put through to a 3rd party who won't have access to the insurance company's case management system so they will probably just give you the free legal advice anyway if you give them the policy number.

Winter_Phoenix

eddddy wrote: »

The OP's case is very, very different from the Foxton's case.

In the OP's case, a couple viewed the house, made an offer, the offer was accepted, then they withdrew the offer whilst they sorted out their finances.

The couple then 'came back' once their finances were in order, and resubmitted their offer.

In this case, I think any judge would say the first EA's efforts were an effective cause of the purchase.

I don't think that anyone suggested that the OP's case was closely similar to the Foxton case?

The key issue is that there is now case law which indicates that it can be reasonable, where two estate agents are involved to a greater or lesser degree (and without joint agency), to pay only one of them.

In the OP's case the first estate agent is probably the one who should have been paid. But as others have said, it would also be reasonable if both estate agents decided on a fair split of the fees involved.

eddddy

Winter_Phoenix wrote: »

The key issue is that there is now case law which indicates that it can be reasonable, where two estate agents are involved to a greater or lesser degree (and without joint agency), to pay only one of them.

Nope.

There were two questions being considered in the Foxton's case:

The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and held that no commission was payable to Foxtons. The decision focused on two key questions:

• What did “a purchaser introduced by Foxtons” mean?
• Was Mrs Low “a purchaser introduced by Foxtons?”

Link: https://www.walkermorris.co.uk/business-insights/estate-agents-commission-blow

There is no case law at all that suggests that if more than one EA is involved in a sale, you only have to pay one of them.

Winter_Phoenix wrote: »

I don't think that anyone suggested that the OP's case was closely similar to the Foxton case?

Oh... so why did you mention the Foxton's case then?

neas

Seems pretty straight forward to me:

EA A did their job, found a buyer, fell through cause finances not in order

few months later some buyers buy property, who were initially introduced and convinced to buy property by EA A.

EA B didnt find buyer, so EA A did the leg work. hard lesson.

martindow

Won't consumer law potentially protect the OP here? It can't be reasonable that terms and conditions in contracts leave them to pay two lots of fees for one sale.

I would suggest that the OP's solicitor refers agent A to agent B to apportion the fee between them.

If A do carry on to open a claim you could join B in the claim and let a judge decide.

abinanthanb

Since house buying is a very matured process and this scenario is a fairly common one, the Association of EAs should have created a simple mechanism to split the fees between EA1 & 2 based on upto what work was done by each. And it should be mandatory for the seller to inform the EA2 if the buyer was introduced by any other EA in the past.