EA fees although Private Sale

blobbi

So we have listed our property on the market.

Then our tenants came forward privately and put in an offer we want to accept. Doh!

The estate agent has done nothing so far except for take a couple of photos and put a listing online. There have been no viewings. We are within 14 days of our contact signing.

Any experience of reducing the cost to the estate agent. There is a clause in the contract that states that within 14 days you are liable for £1500 and if it was to sell potentially more. We want as little hassle as possible.

Thanks in advance

ACG

Did the tenants come to you directly or the agent?
Did the agent find the tenants in the first place?

blobbi

No to both
We found the tenants
The came directly to us and not through the EA

The terms state:
"You will still retain the right to cancel the agreement within the 14 day period, but if you do, you shall pay
an amount which is in proportion to what has been performed until you have communicated to us your cancellation from this contract, in comparison with the full coverage of this contract up to £1500. However, this figure may be higher in the event of offers having been received, accepted or a sale being agreed."

Thrugelmir

That's life.

At least selling to your tenants will make the process far easier than it could have been.

Presumably you told your tenants of your intention to sell and they didn't immediately respond positively.

G_M

They have spent time and money taking photos and putting a listing online.And possibly some other internal stuff.

so if you cancel the contract they can charge you for those costs. Whether it will be £1500 is unlikely.

If they did not introduce the tenants originally you should be fine (though if a different letting agent introduced the tenants you'd better read that contract too!)

theartfullodger

If tenants only found out through (say..) the "for sale" sign outside or being contacted for viewings/surveys/photos then they WERE introduced by agent and agent may well be due his compo.



See if agents sue. Were I the agent I probably would sue.



(Rare occasion of myself siding with agents,,,)

G_M

theartfullodger wrote: »

If tenants only found out through (say..) the "for sale" sign outside or being contacted for viewings/surveys/photos then they WERE introduced by agent and agent may well be due his compo.

See if agents sue. Were I the agent I probably would sue.

It's a valid legal point artful, though I suspect hard for the agent to prove it was their sign that 'introduced' the tenants to the sale.

OP would tell the court they had previously discussed selling with their tenants. Since this is a highly plausible explanation the court would have to decide on the balance of probabilities........

blobbi

They tenants contacted us before we instructed the agents, but it’s been a long discussion and only reached a reasonable offer now.

My concern is not being sued, it’s the hassle that goes along with that. I’m happy to reimbuse costs for any work done of course.

Thrugelmir

G_M wrote: »

OP would tell the court they had previously discussed selling with their tenants. Since this is a highly plausible explanation the court would have to decide on the balance of probabilities........

Courts aren't there to arbitrate on probability. After all was the OP's decision to contractually employ the agents to act on their behalf. Expect the EA to be awarded costs of the action. Plus whatever reasonable costs they claim for work undertaken todate.

G_M

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Courts aren't there to arbitrate on probability. After all was the OP's decision to contractually employ the agents to act on their behalf. Expect the EA to be awarded costs of the action. Plus whatever reasonable costs they claim for work undertaken todate.

I think there's a misunderstanding.
The scenario artful/I were debating:

* Agent is employed subject to a 14 day cooling off period
* agent starts work (photos etc)
* tenant makes an offer

* seller cancels agent contrat within the 14 days
* agent claims their costs
* seller pays the costs
* agent claims their seller's fee for selling the property, claiming the tenant was 'introduced' as a result of 'for sale' sign
* seller refuses to pay fee claimimg the tenant's offer was based on previous conversations with the landlord/owner - not as a result of agent markting
* court case ensues and judge makes a decision as to whether the EA has proven his case (that tenant was introduced by EA marketing) on the balance of probabilities

blobbi

G_M wrote: »

I think there's a misunderstanding.
The scenario artful/I were debating:

* Agent is employed subject to a 14 day cooling off period
* agent starts work (photos etc)
* tenant makes an offer

* seller cancels agent contrat within the 14 days
* agent claims their costs
* seller pays the costs
* agent claims their seller's fee for selling the property, claiming the tenant was 'introduced' as a result of 'for sale' sign
* seller refuses to pay fee claimimg the tenant's offer was based on previous conversations with the landlord/owner - not as a result of agent markting
* court case ensues and judge makes a decision as to whether the EA has proven his case (that tenant was introduced by EA marketing) on the balance of probabilities

Yep, that's basically it. Any experience of this happening.