A vendor has been conducting an online campaign against Penyards, the agent that has been bought out of administration after collapsing with debts of almost £1m.
Paul Tranter and his wife had signed a sole selling rights contract with Penyards.
A buyer initially introduced by the firm re-appeared nearly two years later through another agent, who they say did all the work to secure the sale.
The Tranters say that Penyards then went to court, winning their case and costing the Tranters nearly £45,000. They claim that this sum of money had to be handed over for what was effectively a single viewing that went nowhere at the time.
Tranter, who has since emigrated to New Zealand, contends that the contract that they signed is a breach of consumer law.
He believes that contracts should not be allowed to state that commission will be due if: “Unconditional contracts for the sale of the property are exchanged after the expiry of the period which we have sole selling rights but to a purchaser who was introduced to you during that period or with whom we had negotiations about the property during that period.”
The matter has echoes of the Foxtons’ case in which the court ruled that, to claim its commission, it was not enough to introduce a purchaser, but that to claim its fee, the agent had to be instrumental in the actual transaction. Because Foxtons had not introduced the buyer to the deal, it was not entitled to a commission, while the second agent – Hamptons – was.
The Tranters’ campaign is here:
http://penyards-estateagents-countryproperties-ournightmare.co.uk/
This seems to have all the hallmarks of Foxtons -v- Hamptons which found for the vendor. In short, Foxtons had showed a viewer around a property and they did not put an offer forward to purchase. It was later re-marketed with Hamptons, and the buyer put forward a successful offer to purchase. The judge found against the Original Agent. The rationale was at the first viewing, they were simply a viewer and they had not been ‘introduced to buy’. It was the second agent who had facilitated the ‘introduction to buy’, at which point they became the ‘buyer’. And it was the agent who found the buyer who was the only one entitled to the fee. On this basis, the Original Agent is not entitled to any fee from the Seller under the terms of their terminated original agency agreement. Here is a link reporting the judgment: http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/news/family/children/no-future-estate-agents-battling-over-introductions
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Seems a perfectly reasonable judgement. On this basis alone the plaintiff should win, let alone that the terms tie the vendor ad infinitum.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register