Sold house privately 9 months after estate agents viewings

RHemmings

GDB2222 said:

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? 

There is conflicting information about this. On looking into things further, it appears that the case @Robbo66 referred to is from 2018 and that suggests that more than just a viewing is needed. But the TPO gave guidance in 2019 that the agent conducting a viewing is enough. However, in 2019 TPO did state that the situation concerning what is an effective introduction is still unclear. I looked for more recent information but didn't find it. In the OP the OP described the eventual buyer as one of the 'viewers'. 

penners324

You owe the estate agent their fee. You had a contract by email.

Mildreds_Earrings

I am late to this post but I had a very similar experience and as others haver mentioned, you will have to pay the estate agent their fee.

When this happened to me, I explained my position and re-negotated my fee with the Estate Agent, who kindly allowed me to pay via instalments.

I am quite alarmed it went from an email to a collection agency but best thing to do is  contact the Estate Agent and politely try to re-negotate but if that fails, you will have to pay the full amount, because you are legally bound by the contract that you signed. All the best. 

Grizebeck

Debt agencies are powerless

Robbo66

RHemmings said:

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. 

The article I posted concerned a ruling made in court so can be used as evidence should the agent decide to instigate a claim for a fee or issue court proceedings. The judge would most certainly take that ruling in to account

eddddy

Robbo66 said:

The article I posted concerned a ruling made in court so can be used as evidence should the agent decide to instigate a claim for a fee or issue court proceedings. The judge would most certainly take that ruling in to account

As you suggest, if the OP wants to dispute that the estate agent "introduced" the buyer, there are 2 routes.

• 1) The OP can wait for the estate agent to make a court claim against the OP

• 2) The OP can proactively complain to The Property Ombudsman or the PRS

For simplicity, I'll assume that The Property Ombudsman (TPOS) is the relevant scheme.

• If the estate agent has started a court claim, TPOS won't get involved.

• If the OP loses a TPOS complaint - in theory, the OP can still refuse to pay, and wait for the estate agent to make a court claim 

So there's probably benefit to getting a TPOS complaint in first. Plus, TPOS is usually more biased towards the consumer than a court would be. Because...

• A court will only consider the terms of the contract and the law

• TPOS will consider the terms of the contract, the law, and the TPOS code of practice (TPOS will also take into account results of previous court cases.)

So for example...

• Failing to provide a list of people introduced to the property is a breach of TPOS code of practice - so TPOS would probably say that severely weakens the estate agent's case

• Failing to provide a list of people introduced to the property is not breaking the law, and it's unlikely to be a breach of contract - so that's not likely to make as much difference in a court case

Edit to add...

I'm just following up on the example suggested in previous posts of "Failing to provide a list of people introduced". I don't think the OP has suggested that actually happened.

But there may be other breaches of the code of practice, which might be relevant.

theartfullodger

Grizebeck said:

Debt agencies are powerless

Untrue.  ...

NameUnavailable

Grizebeck said:

Debt agencies are powerless

The debt collectors may have purchased the debt......

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

theartfullodger said:

Grizebeck said:

Debt agencies are powerless

Untrue.  ...

If someone takes you to court and gets a judgement there is obviously official means of money being recovered (sheriffs, bailiffs, etc), but what can the "write scary letters and hassle you on the phone" companies actually do that you or I can't? 

user1977

Robbo66 said:

RHemmings said:

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. 

The article I posted concerned a ruling made in court so can be used as evidence should the agent decide to instigate a claim for a fee or issue court proceedings. The judge would most certainly take that ruling in to account

The judge might take it into account, but as it was only a County Court decision it isn't binding on any other courts.