The complaint

A homeowner, Mira, raised a formal complaint after finding that the agent fee she paid during the sale of her property may not have been owed to the agent who received it. My The dispute was focused on whether Agent Two or the previously instructed Agent One was entitled to the commission, and whether Agent Two had acted in line with the TPO Code of Practice.

Mira first instructed Agent One under a Sole Selling Rights Agreement signed in March 2023. In July 2023, a prospective buyer, Emmeline, viewed the property through Agent One, and she and her husband, Ralph, submitted an offer. Mira rejected the offer.

In early August, Mira gave notice to terminate Agent One’s agreement, with the 28‑day notice period ending on 5th September. Agent One acknowledged the termination and confirmed their ongoing fee entitlement.

Two weeks later, Mira signed a new Sole Selling Rights Agreement with Agent Two. The buyers, Emmeline and Ralph, viewed the property again via Agent Two on or around 2nd September, although Agent Two did not provide viewing records to confirm this.

On 5th September, the buyers made a second offer, this time through Agent two, which Mira accepted. The sale was completed on 8th December 2023, and Mira paid the commission fee to Agent Two.

In June 2024, Agent One contacted Mira, asserting that, as they had originally introduced the buyers, the fee was payable to them. Mira subsequently brought the matter to TPO.

The dispute

Agent Two argued that they were entitled to the fee because Agent One’s contract had not been signed by all property owners, the initial asking price had been too high, and Ralph was not named on Agent One’s list of introduced buyers. They also said Mira had been satisfied with their service.

Mira disputed this, stating that Emmeline and Ralph had clearly been introduced by Agent One and that Agent Two had failed to take the steps required to prevent a dual‑fee situation.

The Ombudsman found that Agent Two had not complied with key obligations under the TPO Code, including obtaining Agent One’s agreement, checking for previously introduced buyers, and asking the buyers whether they had viewed the property before. Evidence showed that Agent Two was aware of Emmeline’s involvement by 5th September but did not act on this information.

Outcome

The Ombudsman concluded that the commission fee was payable to Agent One, as they had introduced the buyers under their Sole Selling Rights Agreement.

An award of £11,160 was directed to Mira, representing the fee she had paid to Agent Two. A claim for legal costs was not upheld, as Mira had chosen to instruct a solicitor despite being advised that this was unnecessary.