The agent who sold the property where an earlier agent, Countrywide brand Palmer Snell, tried to claim a fee of almost £8,000, has spoken out.
George and Hilary Wood appointed Fortnam Smith and Banwell after Palmer Snell failed to sell their Lyme Regis home.
Palmer Snell had suggested that a couple, Mr and Mrs Luckraft, would like to view the property but the Woods declined, because the Luckrafts still had two homes to sell.
Fortnam Smith and Banwell subsequently sold the property to the Luckrafts after a change in circumstances.
The Woods were then asked to pay Palmer Snell a fee; they refused and complained to the Property Ombudsman – which rejected their complaint.
However, when Countrywide took their claim to the county court, it was swiftly thrown out by the judge, who cited an earlier case involving Foxtons where the Court of Appeal said that to claim a fee, an agent had to prove it had introduced the buyer to the transaction, not just to the property.
Kevin Hunt, of Fortnam Smith and Banwell, who was in court, has now told EYE: “I am pleased that having endured nearly three years of stress and uncertainty the court has found in favour of Mr and Mrs Wood, emphatically dismissing Countrywide’s claim.
“I am however disappointed and concerned that Countrywide, despite clear legal precedents on fee entitlement, felt it appropriate to pursue this matter through Sinclair Taylor, a no win, no fee third party.
“I am also disappointed that the TPO, to whom I suggested Mr and Mrs Wood seek advice, chose to ignore the same legal judgements when dealing with their complaint against Countrywide.”
EYE has also asked TPO if it has a mechanism for calling back in cases, and if so, if it would be reviewing the Woods’ case.
Comments (3)
This whole episode must have indeed been distressing for Mr & Mrs Wood. They should now sue Palmer Snell for Vexatious Litigation – see how they like it!
Yours and the Fordnam, Smith & Banwell case are rather concerning and don’t seem to show TPO in the best light. In the first case they don’t seem to have understood the case law and in your case they don’t seem to be going after “natural justice”. I can understand however that they can, almost always, only consider the evidence that is presented to them at the time.
I don’t think that TPO will call back or review their case I have been trying to get them to reopen my case with new evidence but they will not even reply to my letters They are not even able to ask for documents All they do is take the word and so say review letters or electronic evidence but will not ask for any thing to support it .If they even respond to eyes request I would be surprised.