Solicitor chasing fee for a part exchange

2261adam

Hi looking for some advice. We had our property on the market with a local estate agent for 13 days, during which time I emailed to explain we wanted to cancel the marketing as we were part exchanging as we had found a new build. This was within the 14 day cooling off period.
The EA has now stated he wants his selling fee even though all they did was show a few people around our house. We part exchanged with a new home builder which was nothing to do with him? Can we please have some advice. The property is being marketed by the new developer through other agents in the town. The contract that was signed had a cooling off period and on the 13tg day I emailed to say I no longer wanted them to market our home.
Thanks in advance

eddddy

What reason does the EA give for not accepting your cancellation in the cooling off period?

For example...

• Are they saying that you entered into the contract on their business premises?

• Are they saying that you didn't cancel in time?

• Or are they accepting your cancellation, but asking you to pay their costs - e.g. for producing property details, arranging viewings etc?

Or for some other reason?

2261adam

They have said that as they have actually generated viewings this negated the cooling off period? Which I don’t accept.
They want the fee as we began to enquire into a new build property on the same day I emailed to cancel during the cooling off period.
Regards

unforeseen

I understand their stance. The cooling off period will normally cease the minute service starts. The have provided viewers so the cooling off period ceased at that point as they have provided the service

Covered by CCRs

Sibz

I understand them billing you for costs accrued (marketing etc) - that's completely fair as they've incurred costs in that. It's not at all their fault that you've changed your mind at the last possible minute.

I'm not sure of the complete legal complexities of this 'cooling off' period - have you read the agreement to see what grounds they may have within it? I know with mine I had agreed before proceeding that if they never sold it I would only be paying them the marketing costs.

System

have a look here, will explain if the agent is entitled to commission or not


https://swarb.co.uk/foxtons-ltd-v-pelkey-bicknell-and-another-ca-23-apr-2008/


https://www.propertyindustryeye.com/why-court-decided-that-sellers-did-not-have-to-pay-commission-to-first-agent/


The upshot is they need to able to prove they were instrumental in agreeing the sale which by the sounds of it they weren't

eddddy

Simonr66 wrote: »

have a look here, will explain if the agent is entitled to commission or not


https://swarb.co.uk/foxtons-ltd-v-pelkey-bicknell-and-another-ca-23-apr-2008/


https://www.propertyindustryeye.com/why-court-decided-that-sellers-did-not-have-to-pay-commission-to-first-agent/


The upshot is they need to able to prove they were instrumental in agreeing the sale which by the sounds of it they weren't

But that only relates to one aspect of the contract.

• A 'Sole Selling Rights' agreement will typically say that fees are due to the EA whoever the buyer was introduced by. (So arguing that the EA didn't introduce them is irrelevant.)

• A 'Sole Agency' agreement will typically say that fees are due to the EA, if the buyer is introduced by the EA or another agent. (It doesn't sound like the buyer was introduced by another agent, but the OP needs to be clear about that.)

And some EAs describe their contracts as "Sole Agency" contracts, but when you read through them, they include terms which make them almost equivalent to "Sole Selling Rights" contracts.

E.g. I've seen "Sole Agency" contracts which say that if a buyer approaches you privately, you agree to refer them to the EA for negotiations.

(But whether the Property Ombudsman would agree that is a fair contract is another matter.)

System

eddddy wrote: »

But that only relates to one aspect of the contract.

• A 'Sole Selling Rights' agreement will typically say that fees are due to the EA whoever the buyer was introduced by. (So arguing that the EA didn't introduce them is irrelevant.)

• A 'Sole Agency' agreement will typically say that fees are due to the EA, if the buyer is introduced by the EA or another agent. (It doesn't sound like the buyer was introduced by another agent, but the OP needs to be clear about that.)

And some EAs describe their contracts as "Sole Agency" contracts, but when you read through them, they include terms which make them almost equivalent to "Sole Selling Rights" contracts.

E.g. I've seen "Sole Agency" contracts which say that if a buyer approaches you privately, you agree to refer them to the EA for negotiations.

(But whether the Property Ombudsman would agree that is a fair contract is another matter.)

and that would be a case of unfair contract terms and should this go to court there is a probability that the judge would find against the agent.


I still think the links I posted are relevant as they do say that an agent has to demonstrate that they were influential in getting the sale. This is possible something that will need to go before a court and get a ruling