Being chased for a 2nd estate agency fee

Phantom96

eddddy said:

Robbo66 said:

To claim a fee the agent must prove they were instrumental in securing the sale have a read  Foxtons Ltd v Bicknell & Anr
also look up Woods vs Palmer Snell

Based on what the OP has said, that might not be relevant.

The OP says "we put it on with one EA...  we decided to add a second agency." 

So the key question is whether the OP did this properly with multi agency contracts. If not, the OP might be liable for double fees (depending on when the buyer was introduced).

Thanks - yes we did this with multi agency contracts.

Phantom96

Schwarzwald said:

So you decided to add a second agency to accelerate the sales process, didn’t read the fine print of the T&Cs, then stopped taking calls from one of the agencies, after they did some work, but are surprised they might ask you to pay their fees?

 Error really seems to sit with you based on what your write. The entire “harassment” connotation is not really necessary, it was you who asked them to put you in touch with as many buyers as possible – why otherwise double up on EAs?

 The reason they only send you an invoice after 18 months seems that you decided to stop communicating with them and they probably only got the information from the land registry about the sale.

 I am not saying that they are in the right to get paid the full 8k, but I think you need to accept some responsibility here.

Before adding a second agent and then taking it off the market and then again on the market, you should have read the conditions to which you agreed and if unhappy with their service, terminated the agreements properly before proceeding to add/stop further agencies and the sale

That's just not how you do business, and instructing agents and selling a property are  business transactions

I get your point but I think you misunderstood- I didn't 'stop taking calls from one of them', we removed the listing with both while we considered our options after months and months of fruitless viewings.

Do you not think if you delist a property and they continue to verbally try to sell in buyers weeks and weeks after you had asked them politely to stop, that is unreasonable? If we hadn't paused things of course I'd agree with you, they would have been doing exactly as we'd asked. The other agency certainly didn't conduct themselves in that manner and respected our decision, and that is the main reason we reverted to sole agency with the more reasonable agency after that. It's probably not a coincidence that the reasonable agency have far more reasonable Terms regarding what constitutes an introduction. And the 2nd agency's actions since show them as unwilling to listen to reason or hold a sensible dialogue. 

I accept that we have not approached this in the best way and as mentioned in original post, it's a big lesson learned for us. However to suggest they are due a full fee seems ludicrous in this scenario.. perhaps by the letter of their terms they are due something if the buyers did first view their advert... But it's certainly not 8 grand. My sister is a solicitor and thinks the same. 

But how was I to know that if they didn't disclose to us the people who they believed they had introduced to our property.. I have paid the agency who did the actual work to close the sale in good faith, and surely the whole concept of consumer rights is that I shouldn't have to pay twice just because someone later comes up with a flimsy claim that they made a loose introduction months prior? I would hope this is how it works anyway.

NameUnavailable

Phantom96 said:

Hello, new member here looking for some urgent advice.

The agency pursuing us is a member of the Property Redress Scheme and we have made a complaint to them after an initial complaint to the agency was shut off by them. Our case with the PRS has been accepted and they are now asking the EA for what evidence they think they have. So far the EA has provided no evidence as to why they think they are owed - the owner basically told me over email that they monitor all properties they have had withdrawals for and parties they have 'introduced' on the land registry website and there has been a match, but that all contact would be via his debt collection agency since we had asked them to not contact us again. Very professional!

The only way we surmise they are claiming to have made an introduction by the letter of their terms is that perhaps our buyers initially responded to an advert they had posted in the period when we had the taken the property off the market and who they kept calling about, however they didn't ever send their names so how were we to recognise them. I have sent off all of the evidence from our side to the PRS and they called me to understand why on earth this agency was pursuing us, as they have provided no evidence for their belief that they are owed a fee and have never seemingly introduced that buyer. She said their next step is to contact the EA to find out what they are basing this on.

It seems the matter is in hand, you need to await the outcome of the PRS review. If they say you're not liable then it will make it very difficult for the EA to take things any further.

Scotbot

Not much help to the OP Burford others reading this if you terminate a contract with an agent ask in writing for a written list of names and  addresses for everyone they have discussed the property with. Then provide that to the second agent to ensure no overlap.

If they don't  provide a list they can't chase you for a fee and if they do and the second agent sells the property to someone on the list they cant charge you

eddddy

Phantom96 said:

Thanks for following up. We added a second agency - we asked both to sign a joint agency agreement. When we parted ways with the 2nd agency we reverted back to a single agency agreement with the original agency.

Eventual buyer was introduced by the original agency when we decided to relist the property with just one agency having had it off the market for a month.

No idea when the 2nd agency believes they 'introduced' the buyers but I am assuming it is while we had the house off the market and reconsidering whether to make the move after all. Otherwise they'd have booked a viewing I guess.

Hope that helps.

Yep that helps.

So, based on your description, it's fairly clear that the second EA didn't introduce the buyer and has no basis for claiming a fee.

The second EA's terms and conditions probably wouldn't stand-up in court - because of the case law mentioned by @Robbo66 .

You correctly say that the second EA's t&cs would contravene the Property Ombudsman's code of practice - but you say the the second EA is a member of the PRS - so not a member of the Property Ombudsman Scheme. So they don't have to follow TPOS code of practice.

The PRS don't have a published code of practice, but hopefully they will still find in your favour anyway, because of the case law.

Phantom96

eddddy said:

Phantom96 said:

Thanks for following up. We added a second agency - we asked both to sign a joint agency agreement. When we parted ways with the 2nd agency we reverted back to a single agency agreement with the original agency.

Eventual buyer was introduced by the original agency when we decided to relist the property with just one agency having had it off the market for a month.

No idea when the 2nd agency believes they 'introduced' the buyers but I am assuming it is while we had the house off the market and reconsidering whether to make the move after all. Otherwise they'd have booked a viewing I guess.

Hope that helps.

Yep that helps.

So, based on your description, it's fairly clear that the second EA didn't introduce the buyer and has no basis for claiming a fee.

The second EA's terms and conditions probably wouldn't stand-up in court - because of the case law mentioned by @Robbo66 .

You correctly say that the second EA's t&cs would contravene the Property Ombudsman's code of practice - but you say the the second EA is a member of the PRS - so not a member of the Property Ombudsman Scheme. So they don't have to follow TPOS code of practice.

The PRS don't have a published code of practice, but hopefully they will still find in your favour anyway, because of the case law.

Thanks for this and yes I couldn't find PRS guidelines either. It gives me some hope that common sense and justice will prevail. In my chat with the PRS case handler she was bemused that they were even pursuing us. Reading those cases @robbo66 sent - very revealing and give me confidence. Definitely some unscrupulous agencies out there trying it on with no win no fee debt collectors and solicitors trying to scare people. I can see why they do it in case someone had deliberately gone around them to avoid a fee, which I know must happen. But in this case we have paid the people who did the work up front.

diystarter7

eddddy said:

Robbo66 said:

To claim a fee the agent must prove they were instrumental in securing the sale have a read  Foxtons Ltd v Bicknell & Anr
also look up Woods vs Palmer Snell

Based on what the OP has said, that might not be relevant.

The OP says "we put it on with one EA...  we decided to add a second agency." 

So the key question is whether the OP did this properly with multi agency contracts. If not, the OP might be liable for double fees (depending on when the buyer was introduced).

Exactly what I was going to post.

From memory one EA we used and I told them to remove this or they won't get our business was the small print I luckily picked up on glancing it was that any introductions they had made and these introductions/people then subsequently bought via another EA, they will have to pay a fee to them, IE we would end up paying another fee.   It was years ago but the post has the main gist of what I read and said and that clause was removed as we gave them 6 weeks instead of the 3 weeks as sole agency I think.

We did sell via the orginal EA, the first potential buyer arrived the next day, quick look, fell in love with the hose, made off and had a survey two day later and pulled out the day after no reason given. Another lot that came the same day agree to buy at the same price and the sale went through within 4/5 weeks.

Phantom96

Robbo66 said:

To claim a fee the agent must prove they were instrumental in securing the sale have a read  Foxtons Ltd v Bicknell & Anr
also look up Woods vs Palmer Snell

Really useful reading. Thanks 👍

movilogo

This could lead to an interesting situation. Say you list your house via EA1 at price £x. You get Mr Buyer who didn’t like the property. Then you move away from EA1 and instruct EA2 to market your property. EA2 advised to reduce price to £y. Same Mr Buyer came back as he liked the house now at £y and eventually buys it.

Clearly EA2 should get the fee here. But can EA1 claim fee too? EA1 has not caused the purchase but EA2 did.

eddddy

movilogo said:

This could lead to an interesting situation. Say you list your house via EA1 at price £x. You get Mr Buyer who didn’t like the property. Then you move away from EA1 and instruct EA2 to market your property. EA2 advised to reduce price to £y. Same Mr Buyer came back as he liked the house now at £y and eventually buys it.

Clearly EA2 should get the fee here. But can EA1 claim fee too? EA1 has not caused the purchase but EA2 did.

That situation should be very clear.  Lets call the eventual buyer 'Mr B'.

• Mr B was introduced by EA1.

• If the Mr B comes back later, they should only ever talk to EA1. They should have no contact with EA2 at any point.

• It is irrelevant that EA2 is now marketing the property - Mr B should only deal with EA1

• (The Property Ombudsman's rules say that if Mr B approaches EA2 - then EA2 must send them back to EA1.)

Therefore:

• EA1 gets their fee for introducing the eventual buyer

• EA2 gets nothing, because they played no part in the sale

Edit to add...

The Property Ombudsman rules also say that EA2 should explain all the above to the seller. If EA2 fails to do so, and EA2 tries to claim a fee, I suspect the Property Ombudsman would rule against EA2.