Foxtons cancel appeal of UTCCR ruling off back of Bank Charges Judgment

[Legal Beagles]

UPDATE: 24th December

Foxtons is to appeal against a High Court ruling that millions of pounds of fees it has charged landlords are unfair, after the banks' overdraft charges ... see page 3 of thread


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEB 2008

The OFT has issued High Court proceedings against Foxtons Limited seeking a declaration on the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 to certain terms in Foxtons' lettings agreements with landlords.




UPDATE 10th JULY -
OFT welcomes high court ruling on Foxtons' use of unfair terms 83/09 10 July 2009

[Legal Beagles]

OFT acts against 'unfair' Foxtons

The Office of Fair Trading is seeking to stop Foxtons using "unfair" terms in its agreements with landlords.

More...

[Legal Beagles]

OFT takes 'unfair' Foxtons to court

Office of Fair Trading launches high court proceedings over 'unfair terms' in the company's lettings agreements

More...

[EXC]

OFT to fight agents in buy-to-let test case

''Estate agent Foxtons has come under fire from the OFT in a test case over unfair letting terms for buy-to-let landlords.''


http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/mortgag...age_id=56&ct=5

[Legal Beagles]

Foxtons taken to court by OFT

The Office of Fair Trading began a High Court action against Foxtons, the estate agency chain, yesterday, in an attempt to force it to remove a handful of allegedly "unfair terms" from its contracts with private landlords.


More...

[CYNthesys]

Estate Agents

No introduction no fee

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article3850366.ece

[Amethyst]

Re: Estate Agents

Court of Appeal
Published May 1, 2008
Bicknell v Foxtons Ltd
An estate agent was entitled to a commission under a sole agency agreement only if he introduced to the client a person who was the eventual purchaser.
The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Rix and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury) so stated on April 23, 2008, when allowing the appeal of Mrs Treld Bicknell against the decision of Judge Williams in Kingston upon Thames County Court on June 12, 2007, that under a sole agency agreement she owed commission to Foxtons Ltd on the sale of her house.
LORD NEUBERGER said that the sole agency provisions in Foxtons’ terms of business were of some general significance because they were taken from the Estate Agents (Provision of Information) Regulations (SI 1991 No 859).
The expression “a purchaser introduced by us” meant a person who became a purchaser as a result of that introduction. Thus, in order to be entitled to a commission Foxtons had to show they had introduced the purchaser to the purchase and not merely to the property.
On the facts, the eventual purchaser was not someone introduced by Foxtons.










Cet doesn't that have something similar to the one you were involved with?

[Guest]

Re: Estate Agents

Very similar, but they don't want to fight anymore. I have prima facie evidence that both witnesses for the Claimant committed perjury, but they don't want to do anything about it.

Having said that, I suppose exposing an estate agent to be a liar is like saying the sun is hot, isn't it?

[Amethyst]

Re: Estate Agents

Okay, sometimes you just can't fight anymore. Completely understandable.

[EXC]

OFT v Foxtons

The OFT are due in the Court of Appeal on Monday with their continuing battle against Foxtons Estate Agents.

This case has eerie similarities with the test case as the OFT is bringing the action under UTCCR.

The OFT is challenging the industry wide practice of charging landlords large fees when a tenant continues to occupy a property after the initial fixed period of the tenancy has expired, even though the estate agent plays no part in representing the landlord and no longer collects the rent or manages the property.

This is the first time the OFT has sought to exercise it's powers of enforcement under UTCCR.

Unlike the test case the OFT sought injunctive relief (applied for an injunction to prevent Foxtons imposing the charges) until the case was concluded. The OFT lost this element of the case and this is the subject of Monday's appeal. One of the three judges hearing the appeal is Lord Justice Waller, an appeal judge in the test case.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2008/28-08

[EXC]

Re: OFT v Foxtons

http://www.thomasmore.co.uk/ImageLib...Newsletter.pdf

ESTATE AGENTS
The OFT brought proceedings against Foxtons alleging that some of the terms in its standard form of contract with landlords for lettings were contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Foxtons succeeded on an application to strike out the claim for an injunction and one of the claims for a declaration. Morgan J held that the injunction sought by the OFT was too wide to be granted in the present proceedings. A distinction had to be drawn between an individual challenge and a collective challenge. In an individual challenge, the court would be able to apply the 1999 Regulations to all of the circumstances of the particular case; it could not do so in a collective challenge. An injunction in the terms sought by the OFT would mean that the court would effectively be ruling on Foxtons’ rights in every individual case without having regard to the specific circumstances of each individual case. A declaration that the relevant terms were not binding on consumers was problematic for the same reason. However a declaration that certain terms were not expressed in plain and intelligible language could be granted on a collective challenge, because the outcome of
the issue depended upon the language used and not upon the circumstances of each case.

Office of Fair Trading v Foxtons Ltd [2008] EWHC 1662 (Ch); [2008] 29 EG 91 (CS).

[Paul Lynch]

Re: OFT v Foxtons

Do you have any further updates on these proceedings ??

[Tools]

Re: OFT v Foxtons

Not as far as I can find

The reason for stating this caselaw was that it was referred to in the Test Case (The Office of Fair Trading- and -Abbey National PLC and others) in which Justice Andrew Smith stated:-

119. This leads to the question whether, if the customer contravened condition 6.5 by writing a guaranteed cheque that was honoured or condition 9.2 by use of his card and the account went into unauthorised overdraft because the Bank made the mandated
payment or allowed a withdrawal, any Overdraft Excess Fee payable upon the resulting overdraft became payable upon the breach so as potentially to engage the legal principles applicable to penalties. In support of his submission that no Relevant Charge is payable on a breach of Lloyds TSB’s 2007 card conditions, Mr Bankim Thanki QC, who represents the Bank, submits that the same charge would be incurred if Lloyds TSB chose to pay a Relevant Instruction when no card had been used. That is indeed contemplated by the leaflets setting out the charges imposed by Lloyds TSB, and was not questioned by the OFT. If the contract between Lloyds TSB and its customers is assumed to incorporate a right for the Bank to levy charges as set out in the leaflets, then I would accept the submission that Relevant Charges were not imposed upon breach of the Lloyds TSB 2007 card conditions: the position would be like that discussed in paras 308 to 312 of the April judgment in relation to condition 12.1 of Barclays’ Card conditions. However, because at the relevant time the contracts between Lloyds TSB and its customers were not incorporated in written form, I am not at present persuaded that I should make a declaration in general terms on the assumption that the contracts between the Bank and its current account customers provided that the Bank was entitled to levy all the charges set out in the Bank’s leaflets. Moreover, before making a declaration in these circumstances I should wish to hear submissions about the decision of Mr Justice Morgan in The Office of Fair Trading v Foxtons Limited, [2008] EWHC 1662 (Ch), which was decided after the hearing before me. I shall therefore invite further submissions from the OFT and Lloyds TSB

[Sanje]

Re: OFT v Foxtons

I intend to refuse to pay the fees levied and see if the estate agent wants to sue me with my defence being that it is an unfair term in the contract. Has anyone elese been down this route?

[EXC]

Re: OFT v Foxtons

Judgment tomorrow.

Before LORD JUSTICE WALLER Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division
LADY JUSTICE ARDEN and
LORD JUSTICE MOORE-BICK
Not Before 10:15
FOR JUDGMENT
APPEAL
From The Chancery Division
FINAL DECISIONS
A3/2008/1939 The Office of Fair Trading -v- Foxtons Limited. Appeal of Claimant from the order of Mr Justice Morgan, dated 17th July 2008, filed 7th August 2008.