Another agent criticised for charging buyers

In essence, provided all parties are kept informed, it makes sense to split fees betweent the buyer and the seller and to set out penalties for a 'change of mind'. It's amazing how long it has taken to get to grips with reforming the established 'no sale no fee no commitment' model which currently relies on unfair sole agency agreements to function. When you hear of an agent who is having a go at improving things you have to applaud the effort.

First time I agree with a post from Mr Shinerock - and no OTM bashing!

The Guardian is very anti estate agents. Read with a pinch of salt, knowing they know very little about the property market. How it works and how it should work.

Many parts of Europe and the USA/Canada work on dual fees, so whats wrong?

That's neither here nor there, Trevor. In this case they're spot on. The practice is completely wrong.

The point is, Trevor, buyers having to pay extra money (basically a bribe) to get agents to take their property most seriously. If not exactly immoral, it's certainly unethical. And then, if you use the firm's preferred solicitor or mortgage broker, you get a discount. That doesn't sound very fair and above board to me.

This sort of activity is an open goal for journos and anti-estate agent bashers. Why give them the ammunition? The reputation of the industry is bad enough as it is, things like this are hardly going to help.

@Hafsid Jalal - you're not the only one. I think I need a lie down.

Double-charging comes across as cheeky and dishonest, even when that's not the case. I think agents would be well-advised to steer clear.

I think one of the issues is that it is not the traditional system here - therefore when it does happen it seems like the agent is trying to make a cheap buck and taking advantage of the buyer. The reason it works in other countries is because everyone expects it happen and is well aware that that's the way it works...

I don't see too much of an issue with it if all parties agree at the very beginning, but I can see how it would come across as a bit cheeky and unwarranted. Buyers changing their mind at the last minute is an annoyance, but that's part and parcel of being an agent - you have to deal with things like that and move on. I'm not sure charging buyers in this way is the solution.

Rob - look outside the UK. So long as people accept. Whats the problem. To bring recorm you have to make changes.

In the UK we see many large companies use 0% models. In fact they charge the buyers. Auctioneers have been doing this for decades.

Buyers and sellers are protected by their lawyers and UK law. So don't see a problem in agents running on buyer and seller fees.

I think that's the issue, though, Trevor, it's not common practice in the UK so people see it as an underhand tactic to make estate agents more money. Again, perception trumps reality.

Yes, Tim, this is more to do with perception. If this was accepted as the norm in the UK, there'd be no story. But because it's not, it looks sneaky and dishonest. The public think agents are merely trying to make a quick buck.

By all means reform. But until that reform comes into play, play by the rules.

Incredibly cheeky of them to suggest to the buyer that their offer won't be taken seriously unless they pay even more money. I understand that when people are pulling out of offers it must be frustrating for estate agents but surely that is just part of the job - and one which they should have to deal with.

Section 5n TPOS says: Fees and Charges: This amendment highlights how agents must not charge the same service to more than one party in the same transaction.

As such are the buyers being charged for different services than the buyers being charged for sales services??

Reduced mortgage and conveyance fees? Maybe a good offer. Or not. Im sure the buyer/s sound the type to shop about.

Laws the law. Just depends on whos getting what as interpreted by law. If unhappy the buyers should contact TPOS or their local TS officer.

But for sure. Guardian is agent unfriendly and media can twist true or indepth facts.

Kenny - agents have to put forward all offers unless clients have placed in writing conditions (such as a low limit) where offers need not be accepted.

Hooray for me :)

If this practice was introduced across the board, we wouldn't have these issues. I think reform needs to be looked at, because there are too many variables at the moment that can cause a sale to fall through.

They have dual fees on the Continent, maybe it's time we implemented them in this country too.

Having said that, I do understand why people are up in arms about it. Whether intended or not, it does come across as a little duplicitous.

I don't think the agent involved was trying to make a quick buck but I can see how it could be perceived that way.

Neil - I think part challenge is main portals allowing the likes of Easy, Purple, etc etc in.

As such its easier to ask a buyer to pay a higher fee. Than have to fight other agents offering budget fees to sellers. In many ways traditional agent models would be better off such main portals. All said many feel they can't be.

Maybe a shift could be offering sellers 0% fees or paying sellers £500 on completion and charging buyers 2-2.5% Could pee off the budget agents

Anything to pee off the budget lot and I'm in! Isn't it true though that the average vendor fee is between 0.75 and 1.25%? Perhaps the Guardian could take not of that....bearing that in mind makes a buyer's fee seem a lot less unfair.

@Simon Shinerock agree the system needs a shake up but suggest this is more like profiteering in a boom market than redressing any balance. That said, I don’t know all the facts.

Seems a bit dishonest to me, but wouldn't be an issue if it was introduced across the board in a fair and balanced way.

@Trevor Mealham - you assume all budget agents are offering a bad service. That's an extremely broad assumption to make, isn't it?

We've seen it in other industries, particularly retail and aviation. Say what you want about Ryanair and EasyJet, and many have, but they do what they say on the tin and do it in a cheap, no-frills way. Their levels of service are sometimes better than pricier, more prestigious airlines. We've also seen it with Lidl and Aldi - sometimes giving customers a budget choice is very popular.

Budget doesn't always mean naff. The implication that because a service is cheap, it stands to reason that it will be terrible. The 'you pay for what you get' line of thinking. While that's true to a degree, it's not always the case. You can pay over the odds for a service and it turns out to be worse.

The same applies to estate agents. An agency charging high fees won't necessarily offer a fantastic, great-value-for-money service. Just look at Foxtons. Whereas a budget (by which I assume you mean online) agent might offer a fantastic service for a quarter of the price.

There are good online agents and bad ones. There are good traditional agents and bad ones. I don't know why traditional agents find this so difficult to fathom. They obviously see online models as a threat to them, blithely dismissing their services as cheap, tacky and not as good as what you'd find on the high-street. Ignoring the fact that many online agents have come from a traditional agency background. Any tricks of the trade, good and bad, that they've picked up would have come from there. So online and traditional agents aren't as chalk and cheese as some would like to make out.

It is accepted practice,for the Government and councils when they buy to pay the sellers agents and solicitors fees.

Fees are paid by the buyer in the case of property compulsory purchase,and in case of any chatels auction buyers premium of around 20% is applied.

In cases of fine art commanding millions the seller will sometimes pay nothing.

There is no such thing as free,a buyer paying £1000 to the selling agent will deduct this from the price they offer.Theytake into account stamp duty,legal fees,too.

When the Government in a budget reduces taxes to one group,it has to increase taxes to another. Money does not grow on trees,and services have to be paid for.

It is refreshing to see people accepting discounters,whether agents grocers,or modern web based businesses. Specsavers are a great example of efficient,and revolutionary business ,taking over from traditional opticians. It is happening in other industries.

So a rise in stamp duty in the past caused sellers to reduce their offers. The same applies to sellers,they get an offer,and should think,after fees I will get £x in my hand. A seller charging buyer will still be working for the seller. Contribution to legal fees seems to becoming the case with some councils,water boards etc. The Cost of Leases Act was brought in to clarify tenants contribution to landlords legal fees.

People taking a mortgage now are charged an admin fee,which has come in within the last 20 years. Times change,people have choices,but deposits generally,would improve the system,where buyers gazunder and drop out,causing stress to sellers,even in a rising property market we hear little of gazumping.

I smile when I see "no commission " foreign money exchange,Sell at 1.5 to £1,buy at 20,so £10 gets you 15 euros/dollars whatever,trade the 15 back,and get £7.50. Let people be free,the seller receives less if buyer pays agent,so hopefully seller aware and happy by not paying agent so much..There seems to be naivety by the public in many areas,I agree with charging £10 plus for cigarettes,but stopping agents charging tenants letting fee will only increase rents.

@Algarve Investor:
Yes god and bad in both online only and traditional office based agents.

For me best agency is main agency where fee is high enough to allow subbing out.

Sorry but budget agents do NOT have enough in the pot to sub out. As such they can NOT in my opinion give max exposure to gain best deal. FACT

@Algarve Investor: Agreed, I'm becoming slightly fed-up with high-street agents acting as if they have one-up on online agents with regards to service, when in fact paying more for a service doesn't not ultimately mean that a better service is guaranteed. There are place for both in the market, which high-street agents seem unwilling to accept.

I think the reality is that we are generally more tolerant of established bad practice than we are of new ones, whether dubious or not. It would be a lot easier if the authorities were able to offer real help but they can't. Try asking the FCA if your new FS idea is compliant, they won't give you an answer but they will procecute you if you break the rules, go figure.