RE Agent pulling a shifty after sale of property

[miket]

Has anyone come across this when selling property with a RE Agent in Victoria?

I had discussions with my RE Agent regarding the payment of advertising costs relating to my property in Melbourne[which was infact sold some 45 days after the expiration of an exclusive sale authority and no continuing authority period].

Initially the agent contacted me waving carrots etc as they do ("Give me the property and I'll do my best to sell it and if it doesn't sell you pay nothing"). So I signed an exclusive sale authority to sell my property within a 60 day period.

I figure ALL conditions stated or handwritten on that agreement fall within that '60 day period' and there was ‘no continuing authority period’ marked on that agreement.

The agent hand wrote " IF NOT SOLD, THE VENDOR DOES NOT INCURR ANY COST" By referring to the Vendor Acknowledgements clause 1 (a) , it also clearly states “The Vendor is obliged to pay the agent the marketing expenses incurred during the currency of this agreement-whether or not a sale takes place or not”.

During the period of this agreement he did not sell the property therefore I am not required to pay for any marketing costs. Assuming a sale occurred in the agreed period – 60 days, I would be prepared to pay the marketing costs.

Apart from that, when I instructed him I wanted a 30 day settlement and 10% deposit he turned up with 30-45 day settlement and only 5 % deposit. The tenants also moved out during the 60 day exclusive because he was very pushy trying to gain access to show clients thru, ie less than 24 hr required notice and was apparently quite rude to them. Anyway, I let that slide but wanted to highlight some of his unethical moves.

Can someone offer their opinion on the advertising thanks,
Mike

 

[Jacque]

Hi Mike
Do you have a solicitor friend who could look over the intial agency agreement you signed? Be clear first about where you legally stand, and you will have more success if you have been wronged.
Good luck with it all

 

[Sultan of Swing]

Are you saying that the agent has now sold your property?

 

[Tools]

I don't understand what your bone of contention is.If the agent sold your property for you,why wouldn't you pay the advertising costs?Are you saying because the exclusive authority had expired?If so,I don't think that should make any difference.I don't know the legal side,but from a moral view point,you should pay.

With regard to the exclusive authority expiring,did you advise the agent in writing that your relationship had ended?i had a property listed with a clown who promised me the world,but couldn't sell after 10 weeks.I took the property off the market and tried again with a different agent 12 months later.The first clown then realised I was trying to sell again,and started to advertise on the internet again,at a price lower than what I was listed with my new agent.I complained to consumer affairs who have a department that deals with complaints against REAs,and as it turns out,the standard REIV sale authority has a bit in small small print that says that at the expiry of the exclusive authority you appoint the agent to sell the property for you,unless you notify them otherwise in writing.Makes the whole exclusive authority contract seem like a waste of time really.

Tools

 

[Aceyducey]

Miket,

I have no sympathy for you.

You ENDORSED the conduct of this agent by agreeing to the terms presented to you. You AFFIRMED the agent's strategy, which they will now repeat with other sales.

You and people like you who support this and other kinds of poor conduct then bitch about it later are the cause of much of the poor service in the Real Estate industry.

Think about it next time before you help pay the salary of someone who can then afford to go on and do it again and again.

Cheers,

Aceyducey

 

[thefirstbruce]

Mike, I think I see one of your beefs.

Basically the agent appears to have cancelled clause 1a by writing the additional condition- "IF NOT SOLD, THE VENDOR DOES NOT INCURR ANY COST".

I think you might have a reasonable case not to pay marketing costs based on this, though don't know the best route to challenge legally. Basically, it sounds like the REA is naive as well as ruthless. To write an additional clause like that without specifying exactly what it refers to other than "any cost" is naive in the extreme.

Could you private message me the REA details. I am looking around there at the moment, and will keep my head up for him/her. Plus I would be happy to warn all my friends up there about this, which includes three significant developers and the coast's major building supplies wholesaler.

Just to reassure, things have been slow on the coast for the last 4 months, and I have been disappointed with the attitude of several agents. They are obviously feeling the slow down. A friend of mine who has an established relationship with an agent around Northshore has also been stunned at the desperate tactics this agent has tried in the last 4 weeks.

Regarding the REA not giving 24 hours notice to the tenants pre inspection, well, that just shouldn't be tolerated.

Unfortunately, this is often the risk of going with the REA offering the highest appraised value.

 

[Sultan of Swing]

Apart from that, when I instructed him I wanted a 30 day settlement and 10% deposit he turned up with 30-45 day settlement and only 5 % deposit. The tenants also moved out during the 60 day exclusive because he was very pushy trying to gain access to show clients thru, ie less than 24 hr required notice and was apparently quite rude to them. Anyway, I let that slide but wanted to highlight some of his unethical moves.

Can someone offer their opinion on the advertising thanks,
Mike

Hi Mike

I'd like to make a couple of points.

As an agent, we're oblidged to present any offers, whether the price is the asking price or whether the deposit or settlement date is suitable or not.

Remember, its only an offer until you accept it. If the 5% deposit wasn't acceptable and the 45 day settlement wasn't acceptable, why did you accept them?? I have difficulty understanding where the agent was unethical with that.

As far as the advertising goes, it appears you allowed to the agent to sell your property after the agreement had expired. Why is it you think you shouldn't pay advertising costs after the agency agreement has expired?? The agent did what you wanted to do there too, and that was to get a sale for you, which again, you allowed him to do.

As far as their dealings with the tenants, well, that's another matter. If what you say is true, then I'd be a little annoyed too.

However, my experience is, as soon as a tenanted property goes on the market, unless its a block of flats of something that only an investor will buy, most tenants start looking for somewhere else to live. It's understandably unsettling for them and they obviously need to get themselves another suitable property ASAP.

Cheers