Estate agents

[Nasty Doorman]

Bit of an interesting one...



Agreed to put our house on the market Sept 17 with EA1 ...had one viewing which went no where at the time.... Sent 2 letters of complaint about the service and agreed to part ways in Jan 18 with the contract null and void.

Signed up with EA2 who were great but no sale ...

Then the viewers from EA1 came back with an offer which we accepted in March which was done verbally .... Was told would need a new contract as that EA1 had gone bust and all business had been transferred to EA3 .

Asked for all relevant paperwork to be sent then but have received nothing at all... I have had no contact with EA3 despite sending 2 letters asking for paperwork etc to be sent.



Where do I stand with the fee? As looking to complete next week but they have nothing in writing from me to say they could market the house and have not even dealt with it =..they have not spoke to me or solicitor dealing with the sale....

[So]

Nasty Doorman said:

Bit of an interesting one...



Agreed to put our house on the market Sept 17 with EA1 ...had one viewing which went no where at the time.... Sent 2 letters of complaint about the service and agreed to part ways in Jan 18 with the contract null and void.

Signed up with EA2 who were great but no sale ...

Then the viewers from EA1 came back with an offer which we accepted in March which was done verbally .... Was told would need a new contract as that EA1 had gone bust and all business had been transferred to EA3 .

Asked for all relevant paperwork to be sent then but have received nothing at all... I have had no contact with EA3 despite sending 2 letters asking for paperwork etc to be sent.



Where do I stand with the fee? As looking to complete next week but they have nothing in writing from me to say they could market the house and have not even dealt with it =..they have not spoke to me or solicitor dealing with the sale....

It depends how the business was "transferred" from EA1 to EA3. Personally I wouldn't pay them until they'd demonstrated a legitimate right to the commission. They probably can't do anything of the sort.

[Boz123]

You might be fee free then...! Or your original contracted fee may be due to creditors of EA1? If you've had nothing agreed with EA3 then surely they have no claim on the fee?

• disclaimer* I am most definitely not a lawyer.

[Nasty Doorman]

So said:

It depends how the business was "transferred" from EA1 to EA3. Personally I wouldn't pay them until they'd demonstrated a legitimate right to the commission. They probably can't do anything of the sort.

how would they do that?? copy of the contract of "sale" ? or further details?

[anonymous-user]

To claim a fee, an agent must be able to prove they were the effective cause of the transaction. An introduction to the property is not enough

http://www.propertyindustryeye.com/eye-newsflash-c...

https://lexisweb.co.uk/cases/2008/april/foxtons-lt...

[Red Devil]

The full transcript in the Foxtons case for those who may be interested.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/419.h...

Some flak flying around re the recent one!.
http://www.propertyindustryeye.com/why-court-decid...
http://www.propertyindustryeye.com/agent-who-sold-...
http://www.propertyindustryeye.com/tpo-to-review-s...

[So]

Nasty Doorman said:

So said:

It depends how the business was "transferred" from EA1 to EA3. Personally I wouldn't pay them until they'd demonstrated a legitimate right to the commission. They probably can't do anything of the sort.

how would they do that?? copy of the contract of "sale" ? or further details?

For example demonstrate that the EA3 had purchased rights to the EA1's contracts. The liquidator of EA1 could confirm this.

It also assumes that EA1 ever had a claim to commission. They may not have.

I'd basically say, "I didn't owe EA 1 because XYZ and I certainly don't owe EA3. Prove that I owe anything to EA3 and I'll pay".

[anonymous-user]

From the OP, it would seem that EA3 has very little prospect of demonstrating that it played any role at all in the sale

If I was OP, I wouldn't be making anymore contact with EA3 and would simply conclude the sale with the buyer

It would be for EA3 to prove its role in the sale

[superlightr]

Nasty Doorman said:

Bit of an interesting one...

Then the viewers from EA1 came back with an offer which we accepted in March which was done verbally .... Was told would need a new contract as that EA1 had gone bust and all business had been transferred to EA3 .

they came back with an offer to who? EA3? who then confirmed the offer in writing? and also contacted you and then went back and forth negotiating a price that was agreeable to both? confirmed in writing and also the Terms of sale?

EA3 may well have bought out EA1 thus will be entitled to rely upon EA1 contract with you.

I think the court case is interesting as the "introducing" a buyer is not 1x call. Its a whole chain of events - ie setting up an office, paying wages, legal compliance and registration, cost of advertising, cost of staff to be there etc.



re the case:
In the instant case, the evidence had not enabled the claimant to establish that it had introduced the eventual purchaser as, on the balance of probabilities, it was more likely that that individual became the purchaser despite, rather than because of, the claimant's actions prior to the involvement of the third party agents who had secured the sale.

Edited by superlightr on Thursday 2nd August 10:22

Edited by superlightr on Thursday 2nd August 10:26

Edited by superlightr on Thursday 2nd August 10:30