Get a Solicitors quote "for a sale" AND "non-sale"....

Z

zen

Guest
Hi all,

This is more for anyone selling a property (mainly for the first time).

I tried for almost one year to sell a property that failed after 3 "Sale Agreed" and had to eventually take it off the market. I can't bear to have to talk to the creditor now.

I got a quote for €1,500 from a solicitor to "sell". A "no-sale" figure wasn't mentioned.

(BTW the sales failed because the agent I used never properly vetted the potential buyers, who never secured; loan approval or loan draw-down. I told him I wanted cash buyers only... :mad:

After the second fail, I received a bill from my solicitor for almost 3k, twice the price of an actual sale quote, which of course I disputed. My defense was my quote was for a "sale".

I was biting my nails to go ahead with a third sale attempt because all costs of sale were to come out of the proceeds. Then it also caved in as the buyer couldn't draw-down the loan,,.....:eek:

After discussing with my solicitor (who was excellent) he reduced the bill to 2k (even after the 3rd attempt).

  • The agent got nothing of course
  • I am taking a massive hit with arrears and lost equity
  • The solicitor is of course wants to be paid

The solicitor's defense is that he didn't say that he was "no sale no fee" (fair enough) but equally didn't say if there was no sale there was a fee and what that fee was if you get me. I should have been made aware of the cost that I would incur after the first fail and any subsequent fails. Do you agree?

When looking for a solicitor, are they not obliged to inform you of a sale figure and a non sale figure? If not folks, then I suggest if you set out on the path to sell, get a quot for both.

I think this is reasonable to share this experience with the forum.

Here's a great link for anyone setting out on the path to sell for the first time by Fiona Reddan from the IT.

Hope some of you find this thread beneficial

https://www.irishtimes.com/business...uch-does-it-cost-to-sell-your-house-1.2822704
 
Solicitor may have had to do work up to time of collapse of sale. He should be paid for that as there was time spent and expense incurred.
 
Ravima said:
Solicitor may have had to do work up to time of collapse of sale. He should be paid for that as there was time spent and expense incurred.
Click to expand...

That may well be true, but I don't think it is relevant to the point being made, which is that surely you should be informed beforehand, especially if the cost was greater than the original quote?

Personally, I think this is a very useful cautionary tale from the OP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen
If you are happy to pay people on commission, they get paid when the sale goes through ie the estate agent. In some cases, they will earn more than the actual work that went in, in others they will be underpaid. In some, they will do lots of work and get nothing at all. It's how it works.

If you are paying someone on a fee basis, you get charged for the work done, irrespective of whether the sale goes through. It is not the solicitors fault that the sale fell through, why should they be out of pocket? They spent time on this case when they could have spent it on other, paying client work (I know the OP is paying in this instance). You can't have it both ways.

Maybe you should pass the costs onto the estate agent for doing such a bad job?

Steven
http://www.bluewaterfp.ie (www.bluewaterfp.ie)
 
I was gazumped a few years ago at the point where I had signed contract. I paid a bill of 300 or so which I thought was fair. 3k seems high but I was buying rather than selling so probably a whole different ball game.
 
SBarrett said:
If you are paying someone on a fee basis, you get charged for the work done, irrespective of whether the sale goes through. It is not the solicitors fault that the sale fell through, why should they be out of pocket?
Click to expand...

This is true but it does not address the point the OP was making which was,

zen said:
I should have been made aware of the cost that I would incur after the first fail and any subsequent fails. Do you agree?
Click to expand...

The OP is correct the solicitor should have informed him. In fact it is required under the law that the solicitor set out their fees advance in a Section 68 letter. See here from the Law Society website. https://www.lawsociety.ie/Solicitor...The-Dos-And-Donts-Of-Section-68/#.Wc4Ld0wZNKg
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen
cremeegg said:
The OP is correct the solicitor should have informed him. In fact it is required under the law that the solicitor set out their fees (in) advance in a Section 68 letter. See here from the Law Society website. https://www.lawsociety.ie/Solicitor...The-Dos-And-Donts-Of-Section-68/#.Wc4Ld0wZNKg
Click to expand...

Only partially true. The S.68 letter must explain how the billing is to be done, eg by fixed rate, hourly billing or whatever. It doesn't require the solicitor to do a Mystic Meg and predict the cost of every assignment in advance. In my experience, its quite easy for solicitors to draft the S.68 letter in such a manner as to comply with the law while keeping their billing options open and thus allowing for various eventualities.
 
cremeegg said:
The OPs solicitor does not appear to have done this. Merely quoted €1,500 fee for "a sale".
Click to expand...

Unless they're unbelievably dopey, I guarantee you that they have done it, even if it is buried in small print. That's what I have repeatedly found in similar situations in the past.
 
T McGibney said:
Unless they're unbelievably dopey, I guarantee you that they have done it, even if it is buried in small print. That's what I have repeatedly found in similar situations in the past.
Click to expand...

I think you're doing a Mystic Meg now - extrapolating from personal experience to make claims about the general.
 
zen said:
Hi all,

This is more for anyone selling a property (mainly for the first time).

I tried for almost one year to sell a property that failed after 3 "Sale Agreed" and had to eventually take it off the market. I can't bear to have to talk to the creditor now.

I got a quote for €1,500 from a solicitor to "sell". A "no-sale" figure wasn't mentioned.

(BTW the sales failed because the agent I used never properly vetted the potential buyers, who never secured; loan approval or loan draw-down. I told him I wanted cash buyers only... :mad:

After the second fail, I received a bill from my solicitor for almost 3k, twice the price of an actual sale quote, which of course I disputed. My defense was my quote was for a "sale".

I was biting my nails to go ahead with a third sale attempt because all costs of sale were to come out of the proceeds. Then it also caved in as the buyer couldn't draw-down the loan,,.....:eek:

After discussing with my solicitor (who was excellent) he reduced the bill to 2k (even after the 3rd attempt).

  • The agent got nothing of course
  • I am taking a massive hit with arrears and lost equity
  • The solicitor is of course wants to be paid

The solicitor's defense is that he didn't say that he was "no sale no fee" (fair enough) but equally didn't say if there was no sale there was a fee and what that fee was if you get me. I should have been made aware of the cost that I would incur after the first fail and any subsequent fails. Do you agree?

When looking for a solicitor, are they not obliged to inform you of a sale figure and a non sale figure? If not folks, then I suggest if you set out on the path to sell, get a quot for both.

I think this is reasonable to share this experience with the forum.

Here's a great link for anyone setting out on the path to sell for the first time by Fiona Reddan from the IT.

Hope some of you find this thread beneficial

https://www.irishtimes.com/business...uch-does-it-cost-to-sell-your-house-1.2822704
Click to expand...


your solicitors behaviour is disgraceful , do not pay the revised ( up ) figure ! , repeated attempts to sell the same property is not the same as selling several properties

i currently own a commercial property in the mid west , it took two attempts to buy it as i pulled out the first time due to issues surrounding vat , had i bought the first time id have spent sixteen grand more than i needed to ( thats another story )

anyway , i had a 1500 euro price agreed with the solicitor , when the sale didnt go ahead , he charged me 1100 , your guy is looking for more than his original fee , he is taking the proverbial , he should have priced in potential extra work , i was told by the last solicitor i dealt with for a sale that if everything went swimmingly well , the fee would be 1300 euro + vat + outlay but the cost could rise to 1800 ( if things were complicated as i originally bought it from a receiver and had only copies of certain documents ) , the sale was entirely smooth and sure enough the fee was 1300 + vat + outlay
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen
T McGibney said:
What claim exactly?
Click to expand...

As I quoted directly from you: "I guarantee you that they have done it".

I've no doubt that your experience is what you claim it to be. My experience is different, and somewhat closer to the OP's. I am not surprised by what they are saying because of that. I would not however use my experience to claim it to be either common place or unusual. In the absence of evidence, that would require mystic powers.
 
Last edited:
newtothis said:
I've no doubt that your experience is what you claim it to be. My experience is different, and somewhat closer to the OP's. I am not surprised by what they are saying because of that. I would not however use my experience to claim it to be either common place or unusual. In the absence of evidence, that would require mystic powers.
Click to expand...

I suspect you misunderstand what I said. ie: based on my own experience in the past, it's quite easy for them to adhere to the S.68 requirements without actually giving you the foggiest notion of what their fees are going to be. And unless they're unusually dopey or careless, they will have covered themselves by doing so.
 
T McGibney said:
I suspect you misunderstand what I said. ie: based on my own experience in the past, it's quite easy for them to adhere to the S.68 requirements without actually giving you the foggiest notion of what their fees are going to be. And unless they're unusually dopey or careless, they will have covered themselves by doing so.
Click to expand...

Now you're trying to give me mystic capabilities to understand "I guarentee...." as meaning "it's quite easy for them...." :)
 
T McGibney said:
I give up.

What part of do you not understand?
Click to expand...

I understand OK.

I was merely pointing out you were making a claim of a general behaviour (as in "I guarantee that...") from your experience which would to my mind require mystic capabilities on your part to know that your experience was universal. You then said that I somehow misunderstood "I guarantee...", and I should have taken it as meaning "it's quite easy for them", which I think is somewhat of a stretch, and would require further mystic capabilities on my part to derive that meaning. If that’s what you meant, why didn’t you say it rather than making the claim you did?

On second thoughts, take that last question as rhetorical and don’t answer it: I’ve had enough too.
 
newtothis said:
I understand OK.

I was merely pointing out you were making a claim of a general behaviour (as in "I guarantee that...") from your experience which would to my mind require mystic capabilities on your part to know that your experience was universal. You then said that I somehow misunderstood "I guarantee...", and I should have taken it as meaning "it's quite easy for them", which I think is somewhat of a stretch, and would require further mystic capabilities on my part to derive that meaning. If that’s what you meant, why didn’t you say it rather than making the claim you did?

On second thoughts, take that last question as rhetorical and don’t answer it: I’ve had enough too.
Click to expand...
No. You keep quoting individual phrases out of context. Instead, read my entire sentences. Then they'll make more sense.

"Unless they're unbelievably dopey, I guarantee you that they have done it, even if it is buried in small print." is not a claim of general behaviour.

My point is that the S.68 requirements are rather lax and it's easy for solicitors to meet them without committing to anything in relation to fees. And again unless a particular solicitor is dopey or careless, I guarantee you that they will make sure that they do so. But some solicitors are indeed dopey and careless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top