Estate agent claiming fees on private sale.....

liberty_lily

My Father-in-Law has just sold a property to a private buyer whilst it was on the market under a 'sole agency' contract with a high street estate agent (the one who's building society gives you extra!).

The buyers, who were not from the local area, were driving about looking for a suitable property and happened to come upon the mobile home site where my F-in-L's park home was situated.

The property itself had no agent's 'for sale' board and they only knew it was available for sale because the site manager pointed it out to them.

The buyers were not registered with the agent in question, nor had they seen the property advertised either online or elsewhere.

The sale went through last week and a few days later my F-in-L received a letter from the agents asking for their 1.5% + vat of the sale price.

My husband paid the agents a visit, explaining that as the buyer was not introduced either 'directly or indirectly' by the agent we felt there was nothing owing to them.

Their response was that this was a grey area - which we quite understand - and that as we cannot prove the buyer DIDN'T see an advert by the H****** and they cannot prove that they DID, my F-in-L should meet them half way and pay half of the 1.5% + vat.

We feel that they are trying to take advantage of an elderly gentleman who they probably think will just accept the situation and cough up.....but they haven't bargained for his six children who will not stand for him being ripped off, particularly as during the time the property was on the market with the agent (nearly 3 months) they only showed one potential buyer over.

However, before we go any further and refuse point blank to hand over the money we would like to check out whether we are right in refusing to pay!

Any advice from more experienced members would be greatly appreciated - thank you!!!

Richard_Webster

If the agents went to court and the point was contested they would have to prove on balance of probabilities that they did introduce the buyer and they have already admitted they have no actual evidence.

Write to the complaints department of the parent company and ask why this is being tried on - they don't want bad publicity do they?

PasturesNew

He signed an agreement setting out their terms.
If they stood a chance they'd be billing him for the FULL amount imho.

So they're just trying it on.

He has the independent witness at the park; although it might be queried how he knew.

narced

EAs seem to be trying this on all over the country, no doubt as they can't sell anything themselves. In this case your father in law owes them nothing - they did not introduce a purchaser, it's not a grey area at all.

Mathsguy

PasturesNew wrote: »

He signed an agreement setting out their terms.
If they stood a chance they'd be billing him for the FULL amount imho.

So they're just trying it on.

PasturesNew is spot on. They are just trying it on to get some money back. If they had a leg to stand on, they would not be saying "oh go on then, lets meet halfway" they'd be saying "see you in court"

(I am not a lawyer)

Jorgan_2

On the face of it, I agree with Pastures New. What does the contract actually say regarding introducing buyers either directly or indirectly?

chickmug

You need to be absolutely sure they signed a 'Sole Agency' agreement then your folks can sell privately and owe no commission.

And NOT a 'Sole Selling Rights' agreement where your folks will owe the agent their full commission.

Let us know?

liberty_lily

Thanks for your reassurance everyone!

Chickmug - the contract is definitely sole agency, not sole selling rights - thankfully!!!

Jorgan - the wording on the contract is as follows -

'you will be liable to pay fees to us in addition to any other costs or charges agreed if at any time unconditional contracts for the sale of your property are exchanged -

with a buyer introduced directly or indirectly during the period of sole agency or with whom we had negotiations about your property during that period, or

with a buyer introduced by another agent during that period.

In this agreement references to 'another agent' includes any person operating an internet site or using other electronic media to advertise properties for sale whether or not they do so with the authority of the owner of the property. 'Introduced' includes any person introduced by us to your property through browsing on an internet site or viewing other electronic media used to advertise your property for sale.'

Hope this helps!

Thanx again!!!

Jorgan_2

liberty_lily wrote: »

'you will be liable to pay fees to us in addition to any other costs or charges agreed if at any time unconditional contracts for the sale of your property are exchanged -

with a buyer introduced directly or indirectly during the period of sole agency or with whom we had negotiations about your property during that period, or

with a buyer introduced by another agent during that period.

In this agreement references to 'another agent' includes any person operating an internet site or using other electronic media to advertise properties for sale whether or not they do so with the authority of the owner of the property. 'Introduced' includes any person introduced by us to your property through browsing on an internet site or viewing other electronic media used to advertise your property for sale.'

Doesn't seem to be much difference between that contract and a sole selling rights contract to be honest. They get the fee if a buyer is introduced directly or indirectly and also if an internet site markets the property without the owners authority.

I'd like to know how what qualifies as an indirect introduction.

I would follow Richards advice earlier in the thread and approach the complaints department to resolve this.

Trollfever

In this agreement references to 'another agent' includes any person operating an internet site or using other electronic media to advertise properties for sale whether or not they do so with the authority of the owner of the property. 'Introduced' includes any person introduced by us to your property through browsing on an internet site or viewing other electronic media used to advertise your property for sale.

An interesting clause that I guess would be impossible to prove in a court.

jimc_2

liberty_lily wrote: »

In this agreement references to 'another agent' includes any person operating an internet site or using other electronic media to advertise properties for sale whether or not they do so with the authority of the owner of the property. 'Introduced' includes any person introduced by us to your property through browsing on an internet site or viewing other electronic media used to advertise your property for sale.'

Phew! Estate Agents really are going for broke on this! They are trying to redefine ALL internet searches as 'agent duties' to try to claim their (unearned) commissions.

Under their definition Google is an estate agent now!

Fortunately the judiciary are not stupid and have just ruled against another claim for commission in a disputed area because of the desire to protect the seller/buyer from the possibility of a double commission. No doubt this clause (which really does seem 'home-made' and not legally crafted) would be laughed out of court if the agent ever tried to enforce it.