REMOVED THIS THREAD

peteyh

Keswick1uk said:

peteyh said:

Yes, the Keswick1uk said:

Do you think you'd have the sale if it wasn't for the agent? 

Yes, the couple contacted me direct through my friends who are their neighbours.

The key element is the law surrounding the contract.

But they knew you were for sale because of Agent B.

They could know i was for sale because of My Nan telling them, but if she hasnt got a contract with me to earn commision for telling them...... I don't owe her money.

1. They agreed to Market for free
2. they  started physically marketeting to the public , well one couple, illegally when they should not have done (they were aware)
3. they marketed me at 25k less than true value to one couple to ensure they made them sign up to sell their property , not working in my (the client) interest
4. they didnt agree any fees to sell or contrtact length with me.

teachfast

I believe you're liable for the fee to Agent B and will end up paying it rather than risk the court fees. You may think you have found a loophole but they will call your bluff on it and you will back down. Your nan isn't going to want to testify in court...

Basically they've done a rush job on your marketing as they knew they had a solid buyer on the hook very quickly and they needed a solid trail of marketing your property. You've been played.

peteyh

Oh i know exactly what they have done as regards the marketing - as im aware of their attempts to push my buyers into markerting/selling and then attempting to purchase my home at a discount with lies, all of which breaks numerous codes of conduct for which they can be fined.
So the options are , im out of contract, throw a conduct charge at them, call their bluff that both myself the buyers will pull out so they lose two fees (buyers literally only want my home otherwise they are putting off purchase until next year, told agent and myself this) - its going to be interesting, there are two players in this game. Getting full value for my property as ive now gone direct to the buyers and had an open conversations is not being played, far from it. Its just whtether i continue to play and aim to nagate my fee i neither agreed nor signed for. Its WIN big or just WIn for me.

Legal advice being given next week.

ps my nan is pretty feisty... she would!

[Deleted User]

You find yourself in a situation where you have permitted photography to take place. Marketing then took place. A buyer was introduced. That sounds like a full house for Agent B, even if you very promptly asked them to halt. Had  they already  established the winning hand? Now  im not saying that your counterpoints are all dud, but letting them in for photos is when this got complicated. With that in mind can anyone confidently say that you arent liable?

verytired11

It looks as if this issue has been more or less resolved by the forum.   When I signed my estate agents contract I went through it with a fine tooth comb.  It was full of wooly language that didn't at all make it clear under what circumstances I would be liable for a fee.  It seemed to imply, under sole agency rights (not sole selling) that if someone even became remotely aware of the property whilst in contract I would be liable for the fee even if the agent didn't show them the property.  It also seemed to tie me in to pay the fee for any private sale at any time in the future (no time limit) to someone who became aware of the property during the contract period.  I made several amendments to the contract and the agent tried to say it was a standard contract and that I was the only person who had ever tried to amend the terms.  But seriously, it was so dodgy and unclear - no doubt so they could argue for their fee in a wide range of situations.  There really should be better regulation of these types of contracts.

eddddy

verytired11 said:

 There really should be better regulation of these types of contracts.

All estate agents have to be members of redress schemes - most of them are members of the Property Ombudsman Scheme. Their mandatory code of practice specifies a lot of what an estate agent's contract must say.

For example, the lack of a time-limit that you mention would breach the code of practice, so if you complained to the Ombudsman, they would tell the EA that it's not enforceable.

FWIW, there's a huge pile of regulation / legislation that EAs must abide by, including:

• the Estate Agents Act 1979,
• the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007, 
• Competition Act 1998,
• the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs),
• Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008 (BPRs),
• Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013,
• Consumer Rights Act 2015

verytired11

eddddy said:

verytired11 said:

 There really should be better regulation of these types of contracts.

All estate agents have to be members of redress schemes - most of them are members of the Property Ombudsman Scheme. Their mandatory code of practice specifies a lot of what an estate agent's contract must say.

For example, the lack of a time-limit that you mention would breach the code of practice, so if you complained to the Ombudsman, they would tell the EA that it's not enforceable.

FWIW, there's a huge pile of regulation / legislation that EAs must abide by, including:

• the Estate Agents Act 1979,
• the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007, 
• Competition Act 1998,
• the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs),
• Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008 (BPRs),
• Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013,
• Consumer Rights Act 2015

Thanks, that's interesting about the time limit.  I didn't think they would be able to enforce it but good to know that it is specifically defined as not being allowed.  I guess the problem is less about the regulation then and more about the enforcement of the regulation, which presumably costs the customer time and money after the event when faced with a disputed fee invoice.  The other thing is the sharp practice that goes on where the contents of the contract are misrepresented to the customer as it was in my case (I was told it was sole agency but the wording was clearly sole selling rights).  I do think agents make their contracts deliberately unclear.

eddddy

verytired11 said:

The other thing is the sharp practice that goes on where the contents of the contract are misrepresented to the customer as it was in my case (I was told it was sole agency but the wording was clearly sole selling rights). 

Yep - I agree. I've seen that in a number of EA contracts.

Similarly, some EAs claim that they offer "No sale, no fee" - but when you read their contract it says different (usually because they introduce the vague concept of a 'ready, willing and able buyer').

As you suggest, the only real solution is to carefully read the EA's contract, and negotiate out terms that are unacceptable - or choose another EA.

verytired11

Similarly, some EAs claim that they offer "No sale, no fee" - but when you read their contract it says different (usually because they introduce the vague concept of a 'ready, willing and able buyer').

As you suggest, the only real solution is to carefully read the EA's contract, and negotiate out terms that are unacceptable - or choose another EA.

Yep one of the other agents hid a 'ready willing and able buyer' clause in their contract - it put me off completely.

peteyh

I'm Pleased to say, especially in response to the numerous desperately negative responses, I've spoken to two legal property experts whom have given me four grounds to dismiss the contract.

- No written or verbal agreement of key factors of the contact makes any possible contract invalid.
- Marketing of the property prior to the known start date (notice period of Agent.1 ) - Not only invalidates contract but also brings Agent.2 liable for recourse.

The other two are more techinical and invilve legal jargon beyond my comprehension but will be tagged on to the letter duly being sent to them

Thansk to those that have sent insightful input - no thanks to those who cant deal with reciprical debate and whats proved to be very relevant counter arguments to some points raised.
Eddddy - really appreciate your time.

Thanks all.