Estate agents taking me to court?

mrginge

DoaM wrote: »

My point was that the statement by pinkshoes was not, as you put it, "frankly ridiculous". I have no intention of leading you by the hand ... if you want to look I'm sure you'll find plenty of court cases where specific terms have been struck out of T&Cs as unfair (leaving the remaining T&Cs in force).

Thanks, but we've moved on from basic principles of contract law. I think we can all grasp the concept of 'terms may be unfair'.

If you have anything to contribute which is relevant to the question asked then I'm all ears.

mrginge

Guest101 wrote: »

Apologies if I missed it or misunderstood what you wrote.


I think there's merit to both points and I'm unsure what a court would decide. I suspect the length of the contract would play a part in any decision.

The contract has a minimum term but is open ended. It exists until one party gives notice. The term is only relevant for providing notice. I don't get why that's such a hard concept for people to understand.

Think of it like an AST that switches to a CPT after the end of the fixed term.

Guest101

mrginge wrote: »

The contract has a minimum term but is open ended. It exists until one party gives notice. The term is only relevant for providing notice. I don't get why that's such a hard concept for people to understand.

Think of it like an AST that switches to a CPT after the end of the fixed term.

To use the AST analogy, which to be fair isn't quite the same, but: If you have a 12 month AST and you leave before the tenancy ends, the contract is concluded. How often do we hear of LLs and Agents saying that the tenant must give notice?


Anyway that's by the by, as this is separate law. A contract typically requires:


Core terms (which the termination fee should apply to) and for those terms to be fair and equal.


There would be no reason for the agent to give notice, but hypothetically the client should be entitled to a fee should that happen. I suspect the contract does not include this.


Contract lengths often do become relevant when deciding what is and is not a 'fair' term. Being open ended in some degree doesn't help the agent in that sense, a judge could easily draw the same conclusions as I have. Whereas had the term been fixed, the term would be more likely to be considered fair as the is a safeguard in place.


Like I say, I can see merit in both points. But (I think my first reply said it) - what agent wants to get £300 and have their name published in the local paper for such fees?

mrginge

Guest I think you've lost the plot lol.

Guest101

mrginge wrote: »

Guest I think you've lost the plot lol.

probably


My point really is there is an element of reputation management, by taking this matter to court the agent opens themselves up to public scrutiny

DoaM

mrginge wrote: »

Thanks, but we've moved on from basic principles of contract law. I think we can all grasp the concept of 'terms may be unfair'.

Apparently not, as the "basic principles of contract law" are fundamental to what is being discussed, yet you are dismissing them in the next breath.

mrginge

Guest101 wrote: »

probably
My point really is there is an element of reputation management, by taking this matter to court the agent opens themselves up to public scrutiny

Well if that was as big a worry as you think then everybody would be going to court for all sorts of nonsense. If the agent is going to win, which it sounds like they pretty much are, then going to court to get their money back would seem like the sensible option. You must live in a pretty small area if the an agent trying to enforce a contract makes the local rag and would have any sort of negative impact.

The alternative of course is to abolish the withdrawal fee from their terms and simply increase the sales commission % to generate the same lost income. Problem solved!

Guest101

mrginge wrote: »

Well if that was as big a worry as you think then everybody would be going to court for all sorts of nonsense. If the agent is going to win, which it sounds like they pretty much are, then going to court to get their money back would seem like the sensible option. You must live in a pretty small area if the an agent trying to enforce a contract makes the local rag and would have any sort of negative impact.

The alternative of course is to abolish the withdrawal fee from their terms and simply increase the sales commission % to generate the same lost income. Problem solved!

Agreed, but the story could be:


Estate Agent holds family to ransom!


A local agent has been unsuccessful in selling a property for over a year, but family cant leave the contract without paying £300.


X, Father/Mother of 2 (always mention kids!) is distraught at the situation. "It's ridiculous, I can understand an agent wanting a cancellation fee if we wanted to switch early, but they've had over a year to sell our house! We want to switch to another agent, as we feel let down, but we don't have £300 spare, who does?!"


etc etc etc.


Stick it on the local facebook page (my local area has over 10,000 members, about 1 in 10 of the residents) and watch it explode.


I work in PR and Comms and this kind of story typically ends with: Owner Y, had this to say: "Our cancellation fees are there to ensure that we don't waste valuable funds marketing a property where the client has seller remorse, on this occasion we've decided to waive the fee as a GOGW"

mrginge

DoaM wrote: »

Apparently not, as the "basic principles of contract law" are fundamental to what is being discussed, yet you are dismissing them in the next breath.

Sorry I was asking for some actual information on why a fee for services rendered payable at the termination of a contract is unfair, not just more waffle.

Do you have any such information?

I will of course concede that if the fee was excessive, for example £10,000 then that would clearly be unfair as it would be disproportionate to the work performed. This fee however is £300 and would cover a marketing period of at least one year. So that is at best 82p per day which the agent is attempting to recover. I don't think we need a judge to decide tbh.

DoaM

If there was no upfront fee paid for the EA services then the exit fee could be reasonable, hence the term reasonable (subject to amount of fee). Is it clear from the OP and subsequent discussion that no upfront fee was paid? It isn't to me, but I'm no expert - or even close to it - in this field, so my questions and comments were [IMHO] reasonable. (And I'd argue that many people reading this thread would have the same opinion unless they were familiar with this field).

Regardless, my initial reason for posting was because of your unnecessary abuse to another forum member, calling their comment "frankly ridiculous" when, quite frankly and obviously, it wasn't.