Estate agency fees - sharp practice

Mutleymeadows

We are being asked to pay a full fee of £6000 to Springbok Properties even though they did not introduce the buyer and have had no involvement with the buyer. Springbok maintain the fed is due because the offer to buy was made (2,days) in to their period of sole agency and I had signed a contract agreeing to that.
Despite sending them a number of things that were wrong with the contract, plus pointing out that it was hardly ethical or professional to maintain their stance, they refuse to answer my concerns. At no time did they provide any advice even knowing that we had received offers before their sole agency period, never arranged a viewing, they didn't even provide the photos for advertising!
My view is that their stance is short sighted. I let them know that I would post my review on as many platforms as possible so that others hopefully won't fall for the same tactics. I will also refer the matter to the Ombudsman.

csgohan4

Mutleymeadows wrote: »

We are being asked to pay a full fee of £6000 to Springbok Properties even though they did not introduce the buyer and have had no involvement with the buyer. Springbok maintain the fed is due because the offer to buy was made (2,days) in to their period of sole agency and I had signed a contract agreeing to that. - What does it mention regarding sole agency? Fees for referral and also including direct offers to you not involving them?

Despite sending them a number of things that were wrong with the contract, plus pointing out that it was hardly ethical or professional to maintain their stance, they refuse to answer my concerns. irrelevant, service issue


At no time did they provide any advice even knowing that we had received offers before their sole agency period, never arranged a viewing, they didn't even provide the photos for advertising! irrelevant, service issue

My view is that their stance is short sighted. I let them know that I would post my review on as many platforms as possible so that others hopefully won't fall for the same tactics. irrelevant, service issue


I will also refer the matter to the Ombudsman.

All depends on what is written on the contract

kingstreet

Mutleymeadows wrote: »

We are being asked to pay a full fee of £6000 to Springbok Properties even though they did not introduce the buyer and have had no involvement with the buyer. Springbok maintain the fed is due because the offer to buy was made (2,days) in to their period of sole agency and I had signed a contract agreeing to that.
Despite sending them a number of things that were wrong with the contract, plus pointing out that it was hardly ethical or professional to maintain their stance, they refuse to answer my concerns. At no time did they provide any advice even knowing that we had received offers before their sole agency period, never arranged a viewing, they didn't even provide the photos for advertising!
My view is that their stance is short sighted. I let them know that I would post my review on as many platforms as possible so that others hopefully won't fall for the same tactics. I will also refer the matter to the Ombudsman.

Before embarking on your contract with this firm, did you provide a list of parties who were interested in the property before your contract with them started and for which no commission would be payable if you proceeded to exchange of contracts with one of these parties...?

G_M

So to sum up:

* you had a contact with agency A, who introduced X, Y & Z prospects
* you decided to leave agency A (for some unknown reason)
* you signed a contract with agency B
* you did not (I'm guessing?) give agency B the names of the previous prospects
* 2 days into your new sole agency contract, you received an offer from prospect X (via agency A? or B?)

Much therefore depends on the wording of the contract you signed with B, but you must have realised that B's 'sole agency contract' (which I'm guessing you went for because it was cheaper than a multi agency one) meant that if any offer was received via any agency during the life of the contract, would mean B was due their commission.

Had you provided B with a list of X, Y, Z and clearly stated these were previously introduced by A, and therefore were outside the contract with B, then things might be more clear-cut.

eddddy

Mutleymeadows wrote: »

We are being asked to pay a full fee of £6000 to Springbok Properties...

<snip>

My view is that their stance is short sighted. I let them know that I would post my review on as many platforms as possible so that others hopefully won't fall for the same tactics. I will also refer the matter to the Ombudsman.

I think you're approaching this with the wrong mindset.

Realistically, to avoid paying the £6k, you have to either

1) point at a clause(s) in the EA's contract which support your belief that no fee is due.

and/or

2) point at a clause(s) in the Ombudsman's code of practice which support your belief that no fee is due.
See: https://www.tpos.co.uk/members/codes-guidance

I can't really see an EA waiving their fee because you write bad reviews about them.

And the ombudsman will only really look at 1 and 2 above.

Thrugelmir

Mutleymeadows wrote: »

even though they did not introduce the buyer and have had no involvement with the buyer.

Where did this buyer suddenly materialise from?