How to deal with dubious estate agents in the forum

[Susan P]

Originally Posted by ronald

Rob - unfortunately telling the difference is not always that easy and mistakes can happen that way.

Mike - you hit the nail on the proverbial head.

However its not just about not getting things to court and worrying about the law.

Its about being fair and balanced as well.

I think there is an argument to be made (outside of any legal considerations) against premitting the naming of companies (especially small ones) on the forum in a way that is detrimental.

It is unfair because checking the facts is very difficult and it is unbalanced because we would have to find the owners of these companies and ask them for their side of the story as well.

Imagine BBC's Watchdog without the team of experts behind it that check that the complaints are real before going to air and that call the companies to allow them to reply.

As I already said - please share your experiences and what you think you did wrong that led to having to deal with a bad company. Please invite people to contact you privately so that you can share further details outside a public forum.

I think that's fair comment.

[Marc]

I do too.
Despite my provocative post further up, I think Ronald has put the case for anonimity well.

[yorkshirelass]

I've read the above comments and would like to thank those who have supported my posting - in fact all comments are welcomed so that there's a balance.

When I named this agent it wasn't with an easy conscience. I am aware that there could be implications for the forum host. However, this case is backed by hard evidence and the implications for others could be very expensive.

I felt a moral obligation to disclose. I don't know whether a forum host is allowed the same sense of moral.

Incidentally, if I've understood Marc's posting correctly, is the forum meant to work such that a Pleb posts a thread and then a senior member puts a reply. After that Plebs should say no more?

[brendangfc]

Originally Posted by yorkshirelass

Incidentally, if I've understood Marc's posting correctly, is the forum meant to work such that a Pleb posts a thread and then a senior member puts a reply. After that Plebs should say no more?

Only if you want George to reply and tell the Pleb to use the search facility because that question has already been asked by someone else!

[ronald]

thank you all for understanding the situation!

yorkshirelass let me just make clear that I complete understand your reaction and I do hope that things will take a turn for the better in the future.

Also I'll use brendagfc's comment about the search facility to mention that the updated forums (coming to a screen near you soon) will have a better search facility :) so all those plebs might be spared the wrath of you senators.

[Marc]

Originally Posted by yorkshirelass

Incidentally, if I've understood Marc's posting correctly, is the forum meant to work such that a Pleb posts a thread and then a senior member puts a reply. After that Plebs should say no more?

Not at all YorkshireLass. It was a pathetic attempt at irony.

[Charles Joseph]

Let us not forget the Plebeian discontent during the early developments in the history of the Roman Republic. In fact, the publication of Rome’s first code of law was secured by the plebs.

Tend to agree with the comments on this thread. Sometimes in the heat of the moment it is easy to forget and even when trying to take a balanced view, it is still possible to make mistakes.

I think it is best to avoid any potential traps that could draw us into the very complex and contentious subject of Tort Law.

As a matter of interest…potential buyers be aware that an agent can use what is called a Contratto per Persona da Nominare. This, in effect, enables the agent to draw up the preliminary contract but reserve the right to insert the final buyer’s name later on, although this has to be done within 3 days of the Atto Pubblico. This is perfectly legal in Italy, although it is speculative because there is no guarantee that the final buyer will actually go ahead.

This means the agent can buy for 10 and sell for 15. In these situations, you can inadvertently allow the agent to act on your behalf, but you are still buying at 15, whereas the agent makes a nice tidy profit. Obviously both vendor and buyer are kept in the dark, otherwise they could object. But because this process is legal, you need to be absolutely sure and you need to have unequivocal proof that the agent is committing any kind of fraud before seeking remedial action.

The best way to avoid this is to appoint a solicitor to act on your behalf.

[GuestS]

Heck, Charles, I'm never buying here again... I guess I'll just have to stay in this house forever, phew, mind you, that's not too bad, I could still be in England :) ;)
I will not be drawn into the Pleb. debate though, other than to say that I can forsee one or two of them getting a bit "above themselves" as time goes on... then they'll start to think for themselves, then goodness only knows what will happen, off for my violin lesson ;)

[greatscott]

Originally Posted by Charles Joseph

This means the agent can buy for 10 and sell for 15. In these situations, you can inadvertently allow the agent to act on your behalf, but you are still buying at 15, whereas the agent makes a nice tidy profit. Obviously both vendor and buyer are kept in the dark, otherwise they could object. But because this process is legal, you need to be absolutely sure and you need to have unequivocal proof that the agent is committing any kind of fraud before seeking remedial action.

The best way to avoid this is to appoint a solicitor to act on your behalf.

I'm only responding so that I can highlight this again, as this is vital information for those of us who are going to be buyers. Thank you very much for posting this Charles!

[Rob]

Hi CJ,
Re; your previous post;

What sort of scenario would allow a potential buyer to 'inadvertently allow an agent to act on your behalf '?

Grazie in l'anticipo
Rob