Is this standard for estate agents.

[polkadotdelight]

I've been reading through the contract I have to sign before putting my house up for sale and there is one thing I'm not so sure about.

It says if they find a buyer who is prepared to go to exchange of contract and we then pull out for any reason at all then we will be expected to pay the full estate agents fees. So, if a buyer was messing us about or decided to reduce their offer at the last minute we would have to pay the estate agents if we pulled out.

I'm also a little concerned that we could get an offer but not find something we like (we are looking and have only one prospective house) and then have to rent somewhere.

Is this a standard thing for estate agents to do?

Ive never come scacross that before.

No, not in Scotland anyway.

No never. Walk away from the agent and tell them why. However, a firm trying to sneak something like that past you is probably best avoided even if they agreed to remove the clause.

It is standard in London. You can ask them to amend it.

Never heard of that before. I agree with everyone else find a different agent!

I've never heard that. IME they only get fees on a successful completion (so effectively on exchange as I don't think anything ever fails after that) I would just tell than you aren't using them to sell your property unless they change or remove that clause. You have every right under E&W law to pull out right up until the point of exchange for whatever reason you want.

I've bought in London twice and have never seen a clause like that.

Thank you for your replies. I think I'm going with another agent.

We sold in Twickenham and the agent had the clause. I didn't like it and I grilled them about it. They wouldn't agree to remove it but they did allow us to add an additional condition: that said the clause was invalid if we sold our house, but didn't buy house x (same agent was selling house x). They turned themselves inside out to make the deals go through. We sold our house at full asking and they expedited the (useless, feeble) vendors of the house we were buying. I would use that agent again even with the clause.

I don't actually think it's fair that they get paid before it happens. Everybody knows that in the buying process in E&W everyone is taking a financial risk until contracts are exchanged. If you're in the estate agency game, you know this and you work with this.

A few weeks ago, my PILs sale nearly fell through the day before exchange - the estate agents were incentivised to sort it out because they wouldn't get paid otherwise. If this clause had been in place, they would have no incentive to get it over the line as they'd be paid regardless. You pay an agent to secure your sale, not to get a certain price without sale guaranteed.

All aspects of an estate agent contract are negotiable. I wouldn't agree to this, but might agree to a higher percentage if they got us asking price or over as another way to incentivise them.

Not standard.

I can never understand why people do that. I find it incredibly hard to keep the house (and garden) at that level of clean and tidy!

I don't think it's standard (haven't seen it when I have sold in London) and wouldn't agree to it.

I've heard of it occasionally, but definitely worth challenging it and ensuring it is on only payable on exchange.

The other thing to watch for is sole agency vs sole selling rights, the latter means you would still have to pay them if you found the buyer yourself, e.g. sold it to a friend.

If it's standard then it's almost certainly not enforceable. How can they prove that a buyer is definitely prepared and able to exchange contracts? A buyer is as capable of a sudden change of mind any time before exchange as a seller is.