80 year old widow - vulnerable?

eddddy

So Just to run through the basis of your complaint…

• If the estate agent had explained "sole selling rights" more clearly, you believe that your mother would not have instructed that estate agent. - she would have looked for another estate agent who offered a "sole agency” contract.

• At the time of signing the contract, your mother considered the possibility that she might get an offer from a friend, neighbour or relative – which is why she wouldn’t have agreed to a “sole selling rights” contract, if she’d understood it.

• Are there other estate agents in the area offering “sole agency” contracts? (I’ve come across some areas where all the agents seem to use “sole selling rights” contracts.)

housebuyer143

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80028529#Comment_80028529

Well yes, I kind of think they have some responsibility. My 92 year old nan who isn't quite there go an estate agent out to sell her house. He left her with the contract and would have signed anything he left with her. He could see this from one visit.

Luckily my mum saw the contract and called the agent and told them not to take any instructions from her as she is not able to make these decisions.

Some responsibility needs to be placed with the agents to determine if someone has the mental capacity or at least the understanding to understand what they are signing.

CKhalvashi

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80028667#Comment_80028667

The issue is though that most people in business aren't qualified to make such decisions as they'd stand in law. We can use reasonable judgement but from personal experience with dementia, if you get someone on a 'good' day there's very often seemingly nothing wrong on these days unless you know that person.

The agent has done completely the right thing in this case, but on the flip side here there is nothing also to suggest they haven't done the right thing in OP's case.

I expect people to read contracts before they enter into them and ask if there's something in there that they don't understand, especially as this presumably has been done face to face.

ed_r

I don't think it is as difficult as all that. If you are dealing with an old person, or someone who is in financial difficulty then you need to keep that in mind in how you deal with them. It takes a little getting your head around because we have all been taught to be cautious and if we arent that's our fault (caveat emptor).

I am not sure of the limits of vulnerability but my impression is that our transaction was not one between two equals. The agent seems (impression) sharp and had a series of behaviours which seem like dodges. It feels like (impression) the old people equivalent of taking candy off a baby.

I have mixed feelings about things like vulnerability but this is the regulators response between two reasonable ideas which I am describing on one side as "taking candy off a baby" and on the other as caveat emptor.

I guess their answer is that if the consumer you are dealing with is making bad decisions you (the agent) need to take care.

eddddy

You don't really seem to be addressing the real issue.

What do you think the estate agent should have done differently, because your mother is vulnerable?

And then, what would your mother have done differently, as a result?

.

For example, if your mother would have done nothing different - i.e. she would have still signed the contract - then nobody is any worse off.

CKhalvashi

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80028909#Comment_80028909

So in that case, presumably you're saying I should not deal with anyone over a certain age without their family being aware of what I'm doing? That's not happening, it would be discrimination directly on the basis of age. I had a 7 hour phone call with someone the other week whose native language isn't English (discussing a B2B contract, so completely outside the scope of any regulations and also nothing to do with property) and took time to explain certain parts in their native language. Are you saying because this is someone in their 20s this step shouldn't have reasonably been taken to ensure everyone understands?

It has to come down to whatever is reasonable to the average person in that situation and I'm not sure from what OP posts that this reasonableness test has not been met.

I try to deal with anyone i meet with respect and treat them in the same way as I'd like to be treated in their situation. There is nothing here to suggest the agent has not done so. Presumably any cooling off period has expired and there was no concern at that stage, so this will be down to contractual terms as long as they are reasonable in court.

user1977

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80028909#Comment_80028909

Is it a "bad" decision though? It sounds like a fairly standard EA contract - perhaps one which more canny clients might try to negotiate, but which plenty of other non-"vulnerable" vendors would shrug and sign. And in most cases, nothing bad would come of it anyway.

sheramber

My sister is a 81 year old widow and she would not be impressed if somebody considered her vulnerable.

On the other hand when my mother was 81 she sounded perfectly sensible and aware to outsiders but family members knew what she was saying was not true.

ReadingTim

sheramber said:

My sister is a 81 year old widow and she would not be impressed if somebody considered her vulnerable.

Nor would (arguably) the most powerful person in the world, the current President of the USA, although he's a sprightly 80-year old.  

theoretica

Can you get any evidence, other than you mother's say so, that they said they had a client lined up to buy it?  Lying to secure a financial advantage is called fraud...