Sold house privately 9 months after estate agents viewings

Grumpy_chap

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

The total payable will still need to include the fees for the collection agency on top of whatever the EA fees were originally.

I'm not so sure of this as with all things each party needs to mitigate their losses. How does paying a third party to send some letters meet this when the estate agent could do the same for the cost of a stamp? 

Old thread but seems to contain solid advice from sourcrates

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5996209/debt-collector-fees

Yes, you are correct but the devil will be in the detail.

As I hinted in the same post that you have (fairly) extracted part of:

Grumpy_chap said:

It seems odd that this reached the point of the EA engaging a collection agency straight away they had confirmation that the sale had proceeded.  I would have thought the EA would have advised / reminded you their fees were due first before following the collection agency route.

Others have made the similar comment but the OP does not seem to have commented.

If we take the thread as it is written, the following is the order of events:

1. OP marketed house via EA
2. EA introduced a buyer who did not proceed
3. OP took house off market
4. Several months later, the buyer contacted the OP directly to buy the house
5. OP sold house to buyer
6. EA telephoned OP to ask if the house had been sold
7. OP confirmed the house was sold.
8. EA was annoyed
9. EA instructed debt collectors

If this truly went as written from 7 to 9 with no pauses, then the EA instructing a collection agency was unreasonable and failing to mitigate costs.  I would agree with the contention that the collection agency's fees might not be recoverable by the EA.

If the steps from 7 to 9 were more protracted with the EA saying the fees are due and the OP refusing, then that might explain why the EA instructed a collection agency and would probably be reasonable actions and costs.  In that case the original selling fees plus the collection agency costs would be due to the EA.

However, as others have said:

caprikid1 said:

I would be surprised if the Estate Agent will not write off the collection agency fee's if you walked in with a cheque for the full fee's as full and final settlement.

I suspect if you offered them less than their full fee's they might be tempted, depends how good their cashflow is.

Hoenir said:

Cashflow won't be good at this time of the year. 

The OP might be able to "cut a deal" with the EA for a quick full-and-final settlement...



Finally, with regard to:

eddddy said:

I think it's very unlikely that the OP contractually agreed to pay any fees for a collection agency.


I've read dozens of estate agents contracts and I've never seen one that says anything like "I [the seller] agree to pay collection agency fees."

Maybe the OP should check the estate agent's contract just to make sure - but I suspect they'll find they only owe the estate agent's regular commission fee.

Most contracts will have a clause about the time for payment and the impact of late payment.
Otherwise, everyone would just pay everything late and there would be no consequences of doing so.
The EA contract is sure to have a clause about non-payment and enforcement actions / costs being recovered.

The EA using a collection agency is no different to any other business using a debt collector in the event of late payment.

Assuming that there was more time between the steps 7 and 9 than the collection agency being the first action by the EA.

eddddy

Grumpy_chap said:

If this truly went as written from 7 to 9 with no pauses, then the EA instructing a collection agency was unreasonable and failing to mitigate costs.  I would agree with the contention that the collection agency's fees might not be recoverable by the EA.

As I said in my previous post, the first question is whether the OP agreed to pay a collection agency fee.

I strongly suspect that the OP didn't agree to pay a collection agency fee.

In which case, no collection agency fee is payable. (Things like 'Reasonable' vs 'unreasonable', mitigating costs etc,  wouldn't be relevant.)

propertyrental

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

propertyrental said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Jonboy_1984 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I'm not so sure of this as with all things each party needs to mitigate their losses. How does paying a third party to send some letters meet this when the estate agent could do the same for the cost of a stamp? 

Old thread but seems to contain solid advice from sourcrates

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5996209/debt-collector-fees

The basic cost for passing something like this over will likely be a few quid for the first written contact and in the region of 10-15% of the total amount they recover, unless it goes to the point of legal action (for which costs are likely recoverable). This is probably comparable to the costs of dealing with it in house by the time you have paid someone’s hourly salary….

Those people are working there any way, the estate agent isn't going to hire a member of staff to specifically send letters to the OP. 

I tried the same argument with my plumber when he invoiced me for his time fixing my boiler.

He seemed convinced he could charge not just for tthe parts, but for his time too, despite the fact that he'd be doing plumbing any way.

That's not an apt comparison. 

No kidding!

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Jonboy_1984 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Jonboy_1984 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I'm not so sure of this as with all things each party needs to mitigate their losses. How does paying a third party to send some letters meet this when the estate agent could do the same for the cost of a stamp? 

Old thread but seems to contain solid advice from sourcrates

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5996209/debt-collector-fees

The basic cost for passing something like this over will likely be a few quid for the first written contact and in the region of 10-15% of the total amount they recover, unless it goes to the point of legal action (for which costs are likely recoverable). This is probably comparable to the costs of dealing with it in house by the time you have paid someone’s hourly salary….

Those people are working there any way, the estate agent isn't going to hire a member of staff to specifically send letters to the OP. 

Yes but your in house staff can be working on future profitable sales rather than disputes with ex-clients. Debt collection and credit control wouldn’t need to exist as jobs full stop if everyone did what they agreed too and it is astonishing how much work some people like to make paying money they owe.

Over on the Consumer Rights board plenty of posters come and say they've spent time emailing, calling, waiting around and asking if their time can be covered and the answer is typically a "no".

Whilst the advice on CR may not be infallible, the basic principle of mitigating losses always applies, if someone doesn't pay you send them a payment reminder which is a pretty standard thing, if they still don't pay you send them a templated letter before action.

There's no need to use a debt collection company, they are often used because the company wants to avoid the headache of the claims process and hopes scary looking letters from someone looking official will do the job, but I don't see that expensive desire falls within mitigating losses.

Always happy to be corrected on such things  

eddddy

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Over on the Consumer Rights board plenty of posters come and say they've spent time emailing, calling, waiting around and asking if their time can be covered and the answer is typically a "no".

The more accurate answer is... you can charge somebody for your time (emailing, calling, waiting around, etc) if they have agreed to pay for your time.

If they haven't agreed to pay for your time, then you'd probably lose, if you went to court.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

eddddy said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Over on the Consumer Rights board plenty of posters come and say they've spent time emailing, calling, waiting around and asking if their time can be covered and the answer is typically a "no".

The more accurate answer is... you can charge somebody for your time (emailing, calling, waiting around, etc) if they have agreed to pay for your time.

If they haven't agreed to pay for your time, then you'd probably lose, if you went to court.

Essentially yes but any term in a business to consumer contract must be fair, a trader is typically unable to impose more than a pre-estimation of loss for a consumer failing to perform their obligations under the contract, with that loss being mitigated, to do otherwise may be classed a penalty under common law and likely viewed as an unfair term under the CRA. 

If the estate agent imposed a £5 charge per letter then that would possibly been seen as OK, but if the customer paid the original bill after 2 letters and refused to pay the extra £10 you'd hope an estate agent has more efficient ways of earing money than chasing someone for £10. 

Hoenir

Grumpy_chap said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

The total payable will still need to include the fees for the collection agency on top of whatever the EA fees were originally.

I'm not so sure of this as with all things each party needs to mitigate their losses. How does paying a third party to send some letters meet this when the estate agent could do the same for the cost of a stamp? 

Old thread but seems to contain solid advice from sourcrates

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5996209/debt-collector-fees

Yes, you are correct but the devil will be in the detail.

As I hinted in the same post that you have (fairly) extracted part of:

Grumpy_chap said:

It seems odd that this reached the point of the EA engaging a collection agency straight away they had confirmation that the sale had proceeded.  I would have thought the EA would have advised / reminded you their fees were due first before following the collection agency route.

Others have made the similar comment but the OP does not seem to have commented.

If we take the thread as it is written, the following is the order of events:

1. OP marketed house via EA
2. EA introduced a buyer who did not proceed
3. OP took house off market
4. Several months later, the buyer contacted the OP directly to buy the house
5. OP sold house to buyer
6. EA telephoned OP to ask if the house had been sold
7. OP confirmed the house was sold.
8. EA was annoyed
9. EA instructed debt collectors

If this truly went as written from 7 to 9 with no pauses, then the EA instructing a collection agency was unreasonable and failing to mitigate costs.  I would agree with the contention that the collection agency's fees might not be recoverable by the EA.

If the steps from 7 to 9 were more protracted with the EA saying the fees are due and the OP refusing, then that might explain why the EA instructed a collection agency and would probably be reasonable actions and costs.  In that case the original selling fees plus the collection agency costs would be due to the EA.

However, as others have said:

caprikid1 said:

I would be surprised if the Estate Agent will not write off the collection agency fee's if you walked in with a cheque for the full fee's as full and final settlement.

I suspect if you offered them less than their full fee's they might be tempted, depends how good their cashflow is.

Hoenir said:

Cashflow won't be good at this time of the year. 

The OP might be able to "cut a deal" with the EA for a quick full-and-final settlement...



Finally, with regard to:

eddddy said:

I think it's very unlikely that the OP contractually agreed to pay any fees for a collection agency.


I've read dozens of estate agents contracts and I've never seen one that says anything like "I [the seller] agree to pay collection agency fees."

Maybe the OP should check the estate agent's contract just to make sure - but I suspect they'll find they only owe the estate agent's regular commission fee.

Most contracts will have a clause about the time for payment and the impact of late payment.
Otherwise, everyone would just pay everything late and there would be no consequences of doing so.
The EA contract is sure to have a clause about non-payment and enforcement actions / costs being recovered.

The EA using a collection agency is no different to any other business using a debt collector in the event of late payment.

Assuming that there was more time between the steps 7 and 9 than the collection agency being the first action by the EA.

People who are legitimately owed money generally don't cut deals. No need to. Providing they follow the correct procedures. They'll have the full weight of the law on their side. There'll have been escalatating reminders sent requesting payment. Likewise notice before legal action.   Outsourcing debt collection is pretty common for smaller operations. Certainly not something you'd expect an inhouse member of staff in an estate agents office to be au fait with. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

Yes, you are correct but the devil will be in the detail.

As I hinted in the same post that you have (fairly) extracted part of:

Apologies, it's a nightmare to scroll on mobile with all previous quotes showing so I just cut everything out apart from the bit I'm referring to

Grumpy_chap said:

1. OP confirmed the house was sold.
2. EA was annoyed
3. EA instructed debt collectors

If this truly went as written from 7 to 9 with no pauses, then the EA instructing a collection agency was unreasonable and failing to mitigate costs.  I would agree with the contention that the collection agency's fees might not be recoverable by the EA.

If the steps from 7 to 9 were more protracted with the EA saying the fees are due and the OP refusing, then that might explain why the EA instructed a collection agency and would probably be reasonable actions and costs.  In that case the original selling fees plus the collection agency costs would be due to the EA.

I understand where you are coming from but really it should be

1. Payment reminder
2. Letter before action
3. File small claims process. 

My understanding is, whilst not the simplest thing to do, the idea of small claims is to allow people to recover money owed without having huge costs and requiring extensive legal advice/backing. 

I understand why debt collecting companies exist and the benefit they bring to someone chasing money, I'm just not sure their fees can legitimately be passed on to a consumer. 

@sourcrates appears to be an active poster, maybe they have some thoughts  

Grumpy_chap said:

The OP might be able to "cut a deal" with the EA for a quick full-and-final settlement...

If OP was going to pay (the post from @Robbo66 might be note worthy) then I agree it's worth "cutting a deal" if the EA will agree. 

Hoenir said:

People who are legitimately owed money generally don't cut deals. No need to. Providing they follow the correct procedures. They'll have the full weight of the law on their side. 

This may be true but my understanding is one of the first steps in small claims is mediation where the mediator will try to get both parties to agree to something, some comments on MSE have suggested they can be a bit pushy to get it resolved and whilst neither side has to agree, negotiation seems to be a part of the official process.  

Hoenir said:. Certainly not something you'd expect an inhouse member of staff in an estate agents office to be au fait with. 

Consumers with no knowledge or experience in this general area are expected to do so when they have an issue with a trader, I would have thought someone acting in a professional capacity (i.e as a business) would generally speaking be better placed so I don't feel the argument they aren't expected to do it in house holds much weight IMHO

RHemmings

Did the estate agent give the OP a list of sellers that had been introduced to the property on disinstruction? 

https://propertyindustryeye.com/new-advice-on-dual-fees-says-first-agent-must-have-done-a-viewing-in-order-to-claim-commission/

A viewing more than six months prior to disinstruction without evidence of continuity of interest will not be deemed an effective introduction by the first agent to any subsequent sale post disinstruction.

The new guidance issued by TPO outlines agent obligations upon disinstruction, including disclosing to the seller a list of parties that they have introduced, i.e. a list of those who have viewed the property.

If the seller signed a sole selling rights agreement, the agent must advise the seller on disinstruction, in writing, that a fee will be due if any party who was introduced during the sole selling rights period proceeds to exchange of contracts.

TPO said that it considers all agents have a specific responsibility NOT to put a consumer at risk of paying two fees and have therefore also outlined the obligations of the second agent upon instruction.

I had previously misunderstood the six months part of this, and thought that any introduction to a property more than six months ago was considered expired. But, on reading carefully, it's six months prior to disinstruction, which is different. 

However, if the estate agent didn't provide a list of the sellers who had been introduced to the property on disinstruction, then this may be consequential. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

If OP was going to pay (the post from @Robbo66 might be note worthy) then I agree it's worth "cutting a deal" if the EA will agree. 

I also think that the post by @Robbo66 is important and it needs to be considered whether or not the EA made an effective introduction as defined by TPO. Not just an 'introduction'. The buyer should be able to say what the timeline was. 

GDB2222

One way an EA can make an ‘effective introduction' is simply to carry out a viewing. Has the OP said whether or not that happened?