I would be grateful for advice on this. I have my property on with a couple of immobiliers and also a couple of English-speaking, online, do-it-yourself property sites (which would obviously save me the 10,000 euros which all the agencies around here charge).
However, this morning I had an unexpected visit from a pleasant young immobilier from Montpellier and although my understanding of French isn't great, I worked out that he was explaining that a young couple who viewed my apartment a week ago, through one of the agencies I'm registed with, are friends of his. And, they are interested in putting in an offer, using him as the agent, who would only charge 3,000 euros as a friendship fee.
My query is - I thought that when someone views a property with an agent in France, they sign a "mandat" with that agent before the viewing, stating that if they put in an offer they must do it through the agent they viewed with. Could anyone enlighten me as to whether it is OK for this couple to offer through another agent? From my point of view, as long as I receive the NET amount I'm happy with I don't care what the agency fee is, but I can understand the buyer not wanting so much of what they pay going to the agent.
Thanks for any guidance on the legalities of this (although I assume the young agent from Montpellier would not be risking his licence by doing something that is not allowed?).
My OH read through yesterday and shook her head. She has been 'done' several times and lost a few Ks as a result. What she says is that there are so many different ways the agencies and individual agents work that there in no single simple answer to Gillian's original question. She absolutely concurs with what Gregor is saying. She also says that too many agents are in the pockets of notaires who run the roost. There is a patch of that where she has an exclusive on a very expensive house where the vendors refuse to deal with the town's own agents, there are four of them, or the local notaire who has a monopoly more or less plus the geometre they absolutely loathe. They say there is more or less a cartel in operation between two of the agents, notaire and geometre so came to her because they know people she has sold for and also that she is outside the local set up. A couple of those agencies have seen the property up online and have been to see the people to a) bad mouth my OH and b) claim they would get more very easily and quickly which what the vendors as local people know is not true. When they were told by one agent that she was working on 'their' territory the wife threw the man out immediately.
Such, it seems, is the behaviour. One of my OH's colleagues who had Carol Norwell's house at some stage in the past does exactly the same. So who and what does anybody believe and what actually is correct?
Sounds weird that the notaire didn't pay the agency from the money received rather than the vendor having to pay with a separate cheque. Was it the same notaire on the three occasions ? 've been involved in loads of ales in Charente over the years and I can't recall this happening tho' I may be mistaken.
I looked for a Depot Manager once through LI. Never ever again. Not that I’m in that game anymore.
Seems to be full of pretentious plonkers !
Simply that, but most networks are predestined for that and become a place to boast and bluster: 'I'm cleverer than you.. nja, nja'
The original concept was great but Martin summed it up for me. The system is now hijacked and serves very little purpose . It's become a bit like the EEC, everyone is a member so it's no longer exclusive to professionals so maybe a new and more 'exclusive' club is needed for the select few, if it hasn't already been done.
It has become just that, for professionals there are better but nobody dares not be on there. Trouble is that there are school children on LinkedIn now showing up as, yes 'schoolboy' or 'schoolgirl' which is a profession?
Seems like a club for modern day as well as ageing yuppies !
blast, where's my filofax ?
Which idiot designed 'e' next to 'w' on the keyboard?
It’s yet another internet tool that has/had great potential for, excuse the pun, linking people, skill sets and talents. However, as most things on the internet, after a short period of success it gets hijacked and morphs into just another site.
By the by Brian, what’s a Reswarcher?
Gillian, much like Shirley re LinkedIn. There are plenty of scammers on LinkedIn. Most of us are professionals who try to promote ourselves together with out 'friends', the contacts you see attached to names on the network. The problem is, and it also happens in my field, is that anybody can say they are anything. Do not rely on it for checking what people are or their credentials because they can be made up. The siret can also be made up but it can also be checked. If you have doubts that is where you should go. Even then that is not 100% because of 'stolen' identities but very unlikely. The entire world is rather leaky.
...The original agent WILL usually come back and try to recover their 'lost' commission.
I, like most agents (i'm an ex agent) have been cheated on at some time and it's not pleasant !
There used to exist, in the late 80s/early 90s a 'mandat d'acheter' signed by potential buyers, this ran alongside the 'bon de visite' and acted as another security measure for the agent. However, customers were very reluctant to sign the mandat as well as the bon de visite in the early days so many sales were lost to rival companies. It really was a case of dog eat dog in those 'halcyon' days !
Debbie, do you work out of the Cahors branch ?
As others have said it is the seller who signs the mandat not the buyer. The buyer signs a bon de visite which prohibits him making an offer direct to the owner. HOWEVER it is the agent who finally negotiates the sale who gets the sale and therefore the fees. Being in the business I had reason a few years ago to investigate this thoroughly and this was the outcome. The difficulty I see being that the new agent does not have a mandat with you. For him to be able to negotiate the sale he needs a new mandat with you which is at least eight days old. All the mandats you have signed must have the same NET price on them regardless of the amount of fees that the agents are charging. If it is found that the sale goes through an agent which has a lower NET price then the other agent could come to you for the fees after the sale.
There is also the knock down the commission game that my wife really hates. The competing agent will drop by a thousand, then she is expected to compete by doing the same. A €5000 commission can turn into 2K very easily and the agencies who do not use their agents as 'freelancers' but as salaried agents can cover with other sales but when another agent might only get a sale every three months or so...
Ten percent is abusive. You could have maybe negotiated when you were signing the mandate. Does it say 10% or 10.000 euros? Normally it is 5 or 6% but they also add a bit for the bargaining. Check the mandat to make certain how much you owe them.
That is just a way to try and get some leverage in case the seller tries to pretend the buyer never came through the agent. It's his proof in court that the name on the deed is the same as the on the dated bon de visite.
Many agents never have the clients sign a bon de visite anyhow.
I believe morally you should just give credit where it's due. If the agent finds your buyer, he's done his job and should be paid the amount you signed for. It's a national sport to try and circumvent them, but it is not the right thing to do.
Gregor - In that case, what is the point of the agent making them sign the "Bon de Visite"?