Overturning Unfair Real Estate Agent Charges

A property vendor found themselves in a difficult situation after discovering that their real estate agent had charged a significantly higher commission than expected. The agent insisted the charges were justified under the signed agreement, but the vendor felt the terms did not reflect their true intentions. Despite attempts to resolve the issue directly, the agent remained uncooperative, leaving the vendor with no choice but to seek external assistance.

We took on the case because we believed the vendor deserved justice. While the case presented a fair level of complexity, we were confident that with thorough analysis, logical reasoning, and solid evidence, we could present a compelling argument. The vendor’s grievance was genuine, and we were determined to ensure their voice was heard.

Our approach was rooted in logic, evidence, and discrepancies. We carefully examined the signed sales authority and identified that it did not accurately reflect the vendor’s wishes. The Tribunal’s decision ultimately hinged on this key point—the agreement, as signed, was not a true representation of what the vendor had agreed to. We argued that the terms were unfair and created an unreasonable financial burden on the vendor.

In our case presentation, we highlighted:

  1. Misalignment with Client Intentions: We demonstrated that the signed agreement did not align with the vendor’s understanding or expectations, particularly regarding the commission structure.
  2. Unfair Terms: We argued that the terms of the agreement were unreasonable and placed an undue financial burden on the vendor, which was not in line with standard industry practices.
  3. Lack of Transparency: We pointed out the agent’s failure to provide clear and complete documentation to both parties, which contributed to the misunderstanding.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) ruled in the vendor’s favour, finding that the signed agreement did not reflect the true intentions of the parties involved. The Tribunal member overseeing the case commended the presentation of the vendor’s case, describing it as “impressively clear and organised.” Additionally, the member noted that the behaviour of the real estate agent “did not reflect well on them,” further reinforcing the strength of our arguments.

The agent was ordered to reimburse the overcharged commission, providing the vendor with the justice they deserved.

This case underscores the importance of ensuring that agreements truly reflect the intentions of all parties involved. We were proud to support the vendor in achieving a fair outcome and holding the agent accountable for their actions.

Client and agent identities have been kept confidential to respect privacy.