Z
zen
Guest
Thanks guys for the feedback
newtothis
you understand completely the message I wanted to convey.
Creamegg,
Ditto. Also, thanks a million for the info on Section 68. Invaluable info that will be put to good use. I've already checked out the link, but will go through it in more detail when I get time. Thank You.
S.Barret.
It wasn't commission, it was a fixed fee for a specific task that wasn't done, no one is blaming no one, Ce La Vie. 3 parties spent time doing work on the task to hand but you feel only the solicitor is obliged to be paid for work done. I disagree. The agent nor I were paid. It wasn't what I was told that was the problem, it was what I wasn't told..... I don't think I'd have a snowballs chance in hell sending the legal bill to the agent but I like your thinking. I want to pay the solicitor a fair amount that satisfies both because they were good but who just pays any figure on the back of a piece of paper with no breakdown or prior knowledge. We'll definitely work this out no problem.
T.McGibney
Thanks for throwing caution to the wind and the constructive criticism. I understand your input was for the right reason albeit a little heated. We nearly had a boiled creamegg LOL
. Sometimes where there is heat there's light. In this case it was worth the argument. I get from you post that despite the obligation of the S68 it can be circumvented leaving a wedge in your agreement for exploitation by Solicitors. Buyer beware, duly noted .
Galway Blowin
I believe sharing personal experience is the backbone of the forum. Yours struck a cord with me. Despite the reduction of 3 to 2k I'll try negotiate a further reduction as there was no sale. I'll suggest paying him 1,500 which was a quote for a sale despite no sale but work was done and yes, it needs to be paid. I was told the second and third sale attempts were just name and amount changes in all fairness.
I'll let you know how I get on.
newtothis
you understand completely the message I wanted to convey.
Creamegg,
Ditto. Also, thanks a million for the info on Section 68. Invaluable info that will be put to good use. I've already checked out the link, but will go through it in more detail when I get time. Thank You.
S.Barret.
It wasn't commission, it was a fixed fee for a specific task that wasn't done, no one is blaming no one, Ce La Vie. 3 parties spent time doing work on the task to hand but you feel only the solicitor is obliged to be paid for work done. I disagree. The agent nor I were paid. It wasn't what I was told that was the problem, it was what I wasn't told..... I don't think I'd have a snowballs chance in hell sending the legal bill to the agent but I like your thinking. I want to pay the solicitor a fair amount that satisfies both because they were good but who just pays any figure on the back of a piece of paper with no breakdown or prior knowledge. We'll definitely work this out no problem.
T.McGibney
Thanks for throwing caution to the wind and the constructive criticism. I understand your input was for the right reason albeit a little heated. We nearly had a boiled creamegg LOL
. Sometimes where there is heat there's light. In this case it was worth the argument. I get from you post that despite the obligation of the S68 it can be circumvented leaving a wedge in your agreement for exploitation by Solicitors. Buyer beware, duly noted .Galway Blowin
I believe sharing personal experience is the backbone of the forum. Yours struck a cord with me. Despite the reduction of 3 to 2k I'll try negotiate a further reduction as there was no sale. I'll suggest paying him 1,500 which was a quote for a sale despite no sale but work was done and yes, it needs to be paid. I was told the second and third sale attempts were just name and amount changes in all fairness.
I'll let you know how I get on.