Campaign against standard term estate agency contracts

Communications from Penyards Country Properties

THIS DOCUMENT DETAILS THE CORRESPONDENCE MADE BETWEEN OURSELVES AND GRAHAM EVANS. THE OTHER DOCUMENTS DETAILS THE THREAD WITH LISA EVANS. MR EVANS TOOK OVER WHEN HE STARTED HIS THREATS.

REQUEST BY LISA EVANS TO REINTRODUCE PARKER – THIS FAILED AS PARKER CHOSE TO DEAL WITH SPENCERS. mrs clarke had been told our property was over priced and it could be bought for £1.1.

THIS IS PROBABLY THE LAST EMAIL RECEIVED BY MRS EVANS

On 2 Jul 2013, at 21:35, Lisa Evans wrote:

Hi Mr and Mrs xxxxxx

Hope you are all well?

Just wanted to catch up to see if you are making any progress with finding buyers for Holly Lodge? I also don’t know if you remember Mr Parker and Miss Clarke, the party last summer who agreed to buy and then lost their buyer? Well they now have finally agreed a sale on their property and so are potentially proceedable and remain interested. I did notice the property was no longer on their website so did wonder if you are still contemplating a sale.

Do let me know the situation and if you are it may be that we can resurrect something.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards

Lisa

———————————————————

3RD AUG
EMAIL HARRASSMENT TO LAWYERS AND THREATS TO FREEZE THE POTENTIAL SALE

Dear Mr & Mrs xxxxxx

Following my last email I have now left two messages for your lawyer and the previous communication, all of which have failed to receive either an acknowledgement or confirmation.

In the event that you fail to respond to this confirming, as in the attached email, our introduction and entitlement to our fee then our company Dutton Gregory have my instructions to apply to the court for a freezing order on Monday to ensure that our rightful demand for payment is met and that any expenses liabilities that are incurred in pursuit of this will also form part of our claim.

Sincerely

Graham Evans

———————————————————

4TH AUGUST
MAILS REGARDING THE LATE NIGHT CALL AND TREATS FROM EVANS

—–Original Message—–
From: xxxxxx. J.xxxxxx – BZ9.com [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxx.com]
Sent: 04 August 2013 01:41
To: Graham Evans
Subject: Phone calls

Mr Evans,

I am very surprised you would choose to call us on a Sunday afternoon, which
is 1.30am for you. I have have recently received messages from our solicitor
that you are leaving messages on his phone also. This is not normal
behaviour!

I’ve received your email and will choose to answer it in my own time.

For the record there is no contracted sale at this point. When there is I
will address your comments. Until such time AGAIN you are requested to stop
contacting all parties concerned.

REPLY FROM EVANS

Dear Mr xxxxxx

Thank you for your reply.

Not wishing to repeat myself but we have records of many Sunday
conversations including those from you to me on my home number late on a
Sunday evening together with many others on Sundays to and from both Lisa
and myself.

Please be assured it is normal practice for the agent who was the introducer
and “effective cause” of sale to pursue the matter of which they are
involved and share a common interest in it’s satisfactory conclusion. Whilst
there is not yet a contracted sale, the sale is nonetheless proceeding and
your reluctance to converse with us on the matter, and that of your
solicitor, raises concern, especially when recent conversation and email
communication not only confirms but acknowledges our continued involvement.

Once I have full clarification of our position in this matter then I shall
resort to a form of mutually acceptable correspondence, until which time I
will need to rely upon continued contact.

I have just now received your latest email but will respond in this reply
…… Our entitlement to our fee is established under clause 10.1 10.1.2 of
our terms and conditions of business ( see attached, (we have the original
signed copy on file of course). This has been more recently endorsed in an
email from Mrs xxxxxx sent at 10.42 on July 2nd 2013, that was also
recently forwarded to you and our solicitor.

Our entitlement to our fee is clear and beyond dispute. Therefore I again
refer to my previous email, unless our interests are confirmed by your legal
representative and that the conditions of our agreement with you are
protected, see clause 7. Of the attached document, referring to your
“irrevocable instructions” then you will leave me with no alternative,
irrespective of any initial personal cost to myself, I intend to claim full
recovery of all costs. I will pursue a freezing order through the courts by
close of business on Monday 5th August 2013 without any further recourse to
you, this may involve you in considerable unnecessary additional expense of
which no doubt your solicitor will advise.

I hope that this matter can be resolved without any legal implications that
is now a matter entirely for you to decide!

Yours Sincerely

Graham Evans

———————————————————

THERE NOW FOLLOWS A SERIES OF MAILS WHERE I TRY TO ESTABLISH PENYARDS ENTITLEMENT TO A FEE:

4TH AUGUST

Subject: Re: Holly Lodge

You have just been sent my response – in the meantime I have read your last email. Our contract was terminated with you on 20th March 2013. Point out where there is an entitlement to your claim.

REPLY

Dear Mr & Mrs xxxxxx

As a matter of professional courtesy I will reply directly to this email although I have referred to it in my last reply.

Thank you nonetheless for confirming and acknowledging that there was a contract between us, “ our contract was terminated with you on 20th March 2013”

In response to your demand to “Point out where there is an entitlement to your claim” I hope my last email reply is adequate for you.

Perhaps you would be kind enough, for the record, to extend a courtesy to me and point out where you believe there is no entitlement to claim.

Yours Sincerely

Graham Evans

———————————————————

MORE PRESSURE WAS APPLIED BY EVANS AND FINALLY I FEEL THE NEED TO REPLY TO EVANS IN A MORE FORCEFUL MANNER – THIS WAS ALL DONE ON MY DUGHTER’S BIRTHDAY – IT WAS TOTALLY RUINED.
04 AUG

—–Original Message—–
From: xxxxxx. J.xxxxxx – BZ9.com [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxx.com]
Sent: 04 August 2013 11:06
To: Graham Evans; s.passam@duttongregory.co.uk; m.broad@duttongregory.co.uk;
Rob Batten
Subject: Re: Holly Lodge

MORE EMAILS ARE COMING IN FROM YOU! THEY HAVE BEEN FILED AND THIS BASICALLY
SUMMARISES THE SITUATION.

TO CLARIFY, YOU WERE NOT CONTACTED LAST WEEK BECAUSE WE ARE WAITING FOR
CLARIFICATION FROM THE NAEA.

The reason we did not ‘fully take the call’ is that we do not appreciate
being threatened on a Sunday afternoon (our time). My wife passed the call
onto me as she was upset. You appeared to be slurring and that is why I also
ended the call with you. I am simply at a loss to understand why you would
call and send a series of emails from 2.00am – 3am on a Sunday morning
threatening to freeze our assets with absolutely no supporting
substantiation. This goes way beyond unprofessionalism.

There may be a history of calls from you but that was when you were acting
for us and had permission to do so. Only in very extreme circumstances were
you allowed to call us on weekends.

Records will also show that permission to contact us was very clearly
withdrawn.

My father in law is a retired senior police officer and is of the opinion
that your actions as well as your threats clearly constitute harassment,
which is a criminal offence. I intend to report you to your local police and
press for a criminal charge to be faced in court.

The basis for your harassment is that you appear to be under the
‘impression’ that you have a claim on an agent’s fee as you introduced the
Parkers last year. As the contract was terminated with you months ago and
the property was withdrawn from the market your claim is in a very grey area
and would really only be sorted by lining the pockets of lawyers. The offer
on the table is at the very edges of acceptability. So here’s the deal. To
avoid any stress, lawyers and hassle and to guarantee you have no claim on
our property, we’ll simply withdraw it from the market.

With regard to the potential sale of Holly Lodge you claim to be very well
informed – Information regarding our private business is subject to data
protection and I am very interested to know where your information is coming
from.

I will also take your actions up with NAEA and TPO. We note that you are
obliged by law to notify the client IN WRITING of all offers. As many of
these offers were conveyed by phone and not in writing we believe there are
multiple breaches of this obligation.

We also have in writing the fact that your company told our current
purchasers that ‘we were desperate and would take Ł1.1M’. This is a clear
failure of your ‘duty of care’ under TPO guidelines.

Furthermore: All estate agents must give you written Terms of Business with
an explanation of terms used. The estate agent must also explain all fees
and charges and tell you if any fee will be payable if you withdraw your
instructions to sell the property. As you are clearly in breach of this
clause our case grows stronger.

You may be aware that I am involved in Internet Marketing
http://gaukmedia.com/. In fact I am very successful in what I do and
companies pay me well to ensure their business is ranked highly throughout
the search engines. This talent can just as easily be used to broadcast
negative publicity such as harassment complaints, convictions and TPO
rulings and I will be instructing my teams to mount a campaign regarding the
way your company operates out of principle.

So in summary, not only will your actions probably result in a criminal
conviction but they will guarantee that you receive no agent’s fee
whatsoever and that anyone searching property in the areas you operate will
be well informed as to the way you do business. Our personal recommendation,
based on personal experience will be to advise vendors to steer clear of
Penyards.

Now, having said that you are aware that there is a deal on the table and
there is an agent’s fee set aside. I really don’t give a damn who gets it
and if your company is entitled then I will look into it.

To even consider the offer from the Parkers the agent’s fee was agreed at
1%.

I believe you feel you are entitled to a fee as you spent money on marketing
and introduced the Parkers however they pulled out and your recent
communications show that you could not put a deal on the table.

However, Spencers were able to put a deal on the table so without their work
we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

Again, I am not in the least bit interested in dealing with your harassment
and legal threats and am more than happy to withdraw Holly Lodge from the
market for the foreseeable future unless there is an agreement PRIOR to
exchange as to who is entitled to what.

REPLY

Dear Mr and Mrs xxxxxx

I think given the spurious nature of your response I am more than content to
leave this to the lawyers and judges to adjudicate over the position. You
may however be advised that I will be relentless in my pursuit of this by
fair and legal means.

Yours sincerely

Graham Evans

Graham Evans
Managing Director

———————————————————

6th AUGUST: WE THEN TRIED TO RESOLVE THIS THROUGH THE INTERNAL COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE

—–Original Message—–
From: xxxxxx. J.xxxxxx – BZ9.com [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxx.com]
Sent: 04 August 2013 22:50
To: Graham Evans; m.broad@duttongregory.co.uk; Rob Batten;
s.passam@duttongregory.co.uk
Subject: Re: Holly Lodge – Letter before Ombudsman

spurious, I will be relentless in my pursuit of this, this may involve you
in considerable unnecessary additional expense, “I want my money”

Mr Evans, as stated in my previous letter, these are not ‘normal’ actions or
rhetoric especially when you consider:

a) there is no sale at this point
b) nothing to freeze
c) no agent’s fee due
d) if due, no one has said that an agent’s fee will NOT be paid if it is
established that there is an entitlement to one

In fact my letter of 4th August clearly states that if an agent’s fee is due
and there is an agreement prior to exchange it will be honoured.

However the facts are that Wednesday last week we received an email from you
asking for private information. Despite being told specifically not to
contact us but to deal with our UK agent you still chose to send this to us.

This effectively gave two working days. I was out of the office on Thursday
and Friday so had no opportunity to respond to this.

On Sunday afternoon you chose to call us, which happened to be in the middle
of our Daughter’s 13th birthday to make what can only be described as
drunken threats to recover your fee and to cripple us with legal costs.
This was then backed up by a series of further emails, each more aggressive
than the last.

Your key threat is to give a deadline of ‘eight’ working hours before you
instruct your lawyer to apply for a ‘freezing order’. At this point it is
unclear what you intent to apply to freeze as no agent’s fee is due to
anyone.

The birthday celebrations had to be postponed whilst we dealt with you.

Firstly I will deal with your claim to a fee. As stated in my letter to you,
last week I forwarded your mail to our agent who has contacted the NAEA for
better clarification.

The fact is that our contract with you was terminated as we were very
unhappy with the service from you. At this point there is NO clarification
that you are entitled to a fee and case law supports the fact that you are
not:

JUDGMENT
The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and held that no
commission was payable to Foxtons. The decision focused on two key
questions:
1. What did “a purchaser introduced by Foxtons” mean?
2. Was Mrs Low “a purchaser introduced by Foxtons?”
In response to the first question the court held that “a purchaser
introduced by Foxtons” had to mean that they introduced the purchaser to the
purchase and not just to the property. The person had to become a purchaser
as a result of the introduction and not simply be a person who at some time
in the future becomes a purchaser. There were numerous reasons for this
including that:
• this interpretation most closely follows the principle that an agent
must normally be the effective cause of the transaction on which he receives
his commission. This minimises the occasions on which more than one
commission would be payable
• it avoids commission being payable to an agent who had shown a
property to a purchaser who had not gone ahead, simply on the basis that
later that same purchaser bought after being referred to the property by
another agent
• the interpretation makes sense in light of Foxtons’ own terms and
conditions which state that commission would be due once unconditional
contracts were exchanged. Only the purchaser could exchange contracts,
therefore this indicates that Foxtons would have to introduce the purchaser
to the purchase and not just the property.
While acknowledging the arguments in support of Foxtons’ case, Lord
Neuberger did not feel they called into question his decision that a
purchaser introduced by Foxtons meant a person introduced by Foxtons to the
purchase, not merely to the property. Given this finding, there was no need
to imply any term that the introduction was the ‘effective cause’ of the
purchase.
Whilst the Court of Appeal would not ordinarily interfere with a finding of
a lower court, the lower court’s finding in this case that Mrs Low was a
purchaser introduced by Foxtons could not be sustained. Foxtons had not
proved their case that Mrs Low was a purchaser introduced to the purchase by
them.

So in summary, we are at this stage trying to establish if there is a fee
payable to Penyards.

If there is then we will move towards mediation as to who is entitled to
what as there is a current contract with Spencers. At this point it will be
expected that the agents work together to establish entitlements from the
agreed 1%

However points to consider:

a) Penyards originally introduced the purchaser to the property but failed
to secure a purchase. The contract was terminated with Penyards for reasons
outlined below
b) Penyards failed to negotiate a sale. Penyards failed to introduce the
purchaser to the purchase as supported by the Court of Appeal judgement. In
fact, the purchasers refused to deal with Penyards
c) Penyards were in breach of their contract and breached TPO/NAEA
guidelines

Formal Complaint Prior to Ombudsman Submission

1) Penyards failed in their duty of care to the vendors. Penyards were
specifically told not to divulge the fact that the vendors were living in
New Zealand. This was ignored and the vendors were extremely distressed
that on each occasion there was an offer on the property their entire
possessions formed a major part of the failed negotiations.
2) Penyards failed in their duty of care to the vendors. Penyards failed to
attempt to negotiate the highest possible price during failed offers. Each
offer from the purchaser was accompanied by long explanation as to why we
should accept an offer far below our asking price. On many occasions
Penyards were reminded that they were supposed to be working for us but this
was dramatically ignored when dealing with the current purchaser, Mr Parker.
They were told by Penyards that the vendors were ‘desperate’ and the
property could be bought for Ł1.1m. This is backed up in emails and a
written statement by the purchasers.
3) Penyards failed to pass on several offers in writing as required by law.
Offers were often conveyed by phone calls or verbally to xxxxxx’s father or
not at all.
4) Penyards failed to explain their entitlement to their charges in writing:
‘All estate agents must give you written Terms of Business with an
explanation of terms used. The estate agent must also explain all fees and
charges and tell you if any fee will be payable if you withdraw your
instructions to sell the property.’
5) Penyards refused to take the property from their website promptly upon
termination of their contract. Many emails were sent before it was removed.
6) Penyards claimed to have marketed the vendor’s property in specialised
magazines in order to extend the web presence and marketing materials after
the contract was terminated. Despite asking for evidence of this magazine
advert it has not been presented.

I expect a full, comprehensive and satisfactory investigation into these
points within EIGHT weeks.

REPLY

Dear Mr & Mrs xxxxxx

As stated in my communication yesterday the matter has now been refereed to
our company solicitors who have my instructions to proceed to protect my
firms interest in this and to instigate the procedures for a freezing order.

Your Sincerely

Graham Evans
Managing Director

————————————————————————

5TH AUGUST CONFIRMATION THAT EVANS IGNORED THE COMPLAITNS PROCEDURE

—–Original Message—–
From: xxxxxx. J.xxxxxx – BZ9.com [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxx.com]
Sent: 05 August 2013 10:32
To: Graham Evans
Subject: Re: Holly Lodge – Letter before Ombudsman

Please confirm that you have now exhausted your internal complaints
procedure.

REPLY

Dear Mr xxxxxx

The matter has been referred to my solicitor and will be dealt with
accordingly. In fact as your email came through I was confirming my
instructions

Graham Evans

Graham Evans
Managing Director

————————————————————————

6TH AUGUST – ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THE SITUATION

From: xxxxxx. J.xxxxxx – BZ9.com [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxx.com]
Sent: 05 August 2013 22:00
To: Graham Evans
Cc: James Burford; m.broad@duttongregory.co.uk; s.passam@duttongregory.co.uk; Rob Batten; robertxxxxxx.com
Subject: Holly Lodge

Dear graham,

We’ve now had the opportunity to look into your claim. The legal advisors and the NAEA both concur with the Court of Appeal judgement in that you are NOT entitled to a fee for the following reasons:

Payment of commission to an estate agent is due when that agent was the ‘effective cause’ of a successful sale, meaning it was as a direct result of their actions that the buyer proceeded to complete the purchase. Whilst no one is denying that Penyards had previous dealings with Mr Parker a little under a year ago their claim is, at best, highly tenuous as they were obviously not the ‘effective cause’ in selling the property, in fact the sale fell through so that would suggest they were quite the opposite.

The NAEA noted, that this is a completely fresh marketing campaign, asking price and sale price and therefore bears no resemblance to the previous marketing carried out by Penyards. This would further endorse the view that they were not the ‘effective cause’.

Our advice clearly states that Spencers, under the terms of the current sole agency agreement, have effectively introduced Mr Parker and, therefore, are due the full fee.

Furthermore it was also suggested by the solicitor that the threat to issue any sort of injunction against us is unnecessarily aggressive and would be highly unlikely to be successful.

Graham, your actions over the last few days throughout the night and over the weekend are simply not normal behaviour. The threats and aggression go way beyond any reason or rationale.

I have heard that Penyards is up for sale and also note that you appear to be losing a lot of properties from your website. I would hazard a guess that you may have business issues and if so this can often cloud judgement, I know as I have been there.

If this is the cause of your recent erratic actions then I am very sorry for you, but this is not helping.

Each time I have contacted you, your stock response has been “i’m getting a freezing order, i’m getting a freezing order, i’m getting a freezing order,”

Now we have clarification on the situation I would respectfully ask that you cease your aggression and harassment. I have no desire whatsoever to lock horns with you but I am being backed into a corner.

You have already ignored my request to follow your internal complaint procedure as required by TPO and this now forces me to take the matter up with them.

At this stage all you have done is cause some stress and upset and under the circumstances outlined above I am quite prepared to leave it at that.

BUT if I am forced to deal with you, your threats or injunctions, costs will form part of the case I take to court or the TPO.

Again, I am very sorry you have chosen to act this way and if business or personal issues are the cause then please seek help. Graham, that is not meant to be provocative or patronising and I say it because I have been there.

Good luck and I hope we can now put an end to this.

REPLY

Dear Mr xxxxxx

As I mentioned to you in our last communication, my lawyers are addressing the matter and you will hear directly from them, all of your comments will be referred to in my statement.

Graham Evans

————————————————————————

21TH AUGUST – SPENCERS CONTACTED PENYARDS TO TRY AND RESOLVE THE ISSUE (WE DIDNT SEE THE CONTENTS) AND SEE IF THEY COULD WORK TOGETHER – THIS IS EVANS’ REPLY – IT IS HIGHLY CONFUSING AT FIRST READ BUT IT ACTUALLY DETAILS A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE TWO AGENS WHICH SEEEMS TO UNDERPIN THE ISSUES AFFECTING US

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dear Mr Batten,

Regrettably we have yet to speak directly but I had intended that our conversation would be documented so as a matter of expediency I have decided to pursue the option of writing soonest.

In the first instance I wish to refer back to the only other time that I have directly engaged with your company. Fortuitously from my point of view the practices of your organisation have only served to endorse my stand point on matters relating to Holly Lodge. Attached is email correspondence and extracts from communication between Mr Mould of Spencers, Mr and Mrs S (the client) and Lisa Evans and myself. Please note the deletion of specific names as a matter of discretion. To rehearse the facts again they are as follows.

1. You arranged the viewing for Mrs and Mrs B (the buyer) to view a property known as Brandon Thatch. At the time they were not in a proceedable position.
Conversely…we arranged a viewing for Mr Parker on Holly Lodge when he was in a proceedable position.

2. Mr and Mrs B (the buyer) made an offer to buy Brandon Thatch which was not accepted.
Conversely…Mr Parker made an offer to acquire Holly Lodge which was accepted.

3. There was no agreement from Mr and Mrs B (the buyer) to acquire Brandon Thatch so no contract was issued.
Conversely…there was an agreement for Mr Parker to buy Holly Lodge and a draft contract was issued.

4. When Mr and Mrs B (the buyer) chose to pursue the property again they came directly to Penyards ignoring Spencers.
Conversely…when Mr Parker chose to pursue the property again he came directly to Penyards ignoring Spencers.

In your attached communication dated 24th May 2013 your Mr Mould states ‘I felt that I had to make you aware of the fact that as the introducing agent we will be due our full fee, should a sale reach a successful conclusion’. He was in fact advising the client that even though you had at that stage done no more than arrange a viewing you state that Spencers should be the beneficiary of a fee, how perverse! Later, on 25th May 2013, Mr Mould states ‘I have this afternoon consulted the legal department of the NAEA who have advised me on the basis of the facts, we are indeed the introducing agent’. And you can see his email continues.

Twice in his representations Mr Mould has suggested that Penyards should ‘step aside at this point’ and in another for Penyards ‘to step back and allow negotiations to continue’. In this case he goes on to say ‘However we unfortunately appear to have very differing professional standards’.

Now let us address these differing professional standards. I will also deal with the expression you have used in your letter to Dutton Gregory dated 14th August ‘normal professional etiquette’. I am bewildered by your double standards, or should I in fact so no apparent standards at all, you have completely and utterly contradicted everything that you have previously held as credible and honourable. It reminds me of the old western movies, ‘cowboys’ speak with forktongue.

Perhaps for clarity you may now wish to decide at what stage an agent is entitled to be paid or indeed even suggest that they are entitled to be paid. I refer to your letter of 14th August again ‘although as contracts have not yet exchanged there is little to discuss at this point in time’. Yet Mr Mould saw fit to clarify in his email of 24th May that Mr and Mrs S should be aware of your entitlement of a fee and on 25th May reminds them ‘to save you being potentially liable for two fees’ . This was even before an offer had been accepted, let alone, virtually at the point of exchange of contracts. Some coherence and consistency would be advantageous.

At the moment we have the following:

· An endorsement of the interpretation of fact from Mr Mould and Spencers of our entitlement to a fee.
· An endorsement from the NAEA that we would be considered the introducing agent
· An email from Mrs xxxxxx dated 2nd July 2013 which has clear unambiguous narrative ‘that is in the agreement as they were possible buyers by yourselves’
· An email from Mr xxxxxx dated 25th March 2013 ‘That’s fine, if you have anyone generated from marketing or anyone from past marketing then they can view. I would deal with the agents on this’

On this basis I refer to my previous statements confirming our position. That is that once contracts have been exchanged if it is not confirmed that we will receive our fee in accordance with our terms and conditions of business Dutton Gregory will be issued with instructions to immediately instigate legal proceedings.

Having stated the above and as a matter of mediation I will however make one concession. This is subject to confirmation in writing from the vendors solicitors that we will be paid in full and final settlement on the date of completion and that these are irrevocable instructions. I will accept 1% plus VAT. This however is to be confirmed in writing no later than 12 noon on Tuesday 27th August.

Yours sincerely,
Graham Evans

————————————————————————

6TH SEPTEMBER – I HAD SOUGHT CLARIFICATION FROM THE OMBUDSMAN AND COPIED IN EVANS – THIS IS PRETTY MUCH THE LAST WE HEARD FROM HIM

Dear Mr & Mrs xxxxxx,

Following on from your recent communications I wish now for the record to make my final response. I respectfully request that from this point onwards all communication should be conducted through the appropriate legal and professional channels.

Legal
I appointed Dutton Gregory, our company lawyers to make a fair and reasonable representation in relation to my firms financial interest in the conclusion of the sale of your above mentioned property. We were legally entitled to place you on notice of our intentions, we were entitled to notify you of our right to claim and we are entitled to pursue the matter through whatever legal and appropriate means are available to us, should this be deemed necessary and as soon as there is an exchange of contracts. I believe my solicitors have applied a very reasoned and practical approach to informing you of my position on this. Therefore in order to remove any question of doubt, in the absence of mediation, I hereby confirm my final formal instruction. Upon exchange of contracts if we do not receive confirmation from your solicitor of your irrevocable instruction to honour the terms and conditions of business, as previously set out, and payment is not received on the date set for completion, then my solicitors will be issued with instructions to make full recovery of all sums due through whatever process they deem most expedient.

Complaint
The Property Ombudsman are a highly respected professional body that represents our industry. They are appointed in circumstances where mutual agreement between interested parties cannot be reached and are authorised to adjudicate over matters such as complaint. I have been in discussion with them and will be calling upon them to deal with this matter in its entirety. I am afraid that I find no basis for a formal complaint. You have made false allegations, you have not in my opinion relied at all upon fact and made spurious claims of inappropriate conduct by myself, my company and indeed my companies solicitors. I therefore will no longer offer any further responses to charges or claims that you make and will allow the Property Ombudsman to do their work.

As a consequence of this course of action and the fact that I will no longer have any direct dialogue with you I am going to make one final observation.

In my view your email correspondence contains a litany of contradictions and inconsistencies, save to say, the one repeated on more than twelve email exchanges in relation to an allegation about my personal conduct. Whilst a question would normally attract an answer I expect your response will form part of the formal transference of documents once the Ombudsman is involved.

However, my curiosity leads me to draw to your attention to the following.

My telephone call to you on Sunday morning of 4th August 2013 was timed at 1.23am GMT phone records show that this conversation lasted 27 seconds. It is alleged by you that I slurred my words and conducted my speech in a drunken fashion. You state that I caused your wife upset and distress, I was aggressive, threatening, rude and that I harassed and intimidated you during the course of that very brief conversation.

The question is (please refer to the attached emails) WHY in your email timed at 1.41am GMT as an initial response to our telephone conversation is there absolutely no single point of reference to my poor conduct, my manner and the alleged threats and distress? WHY is it also that on an email some 13 minutes later at 1.54am GMT your second such communication within 30 minutes of my original call have you again failed in anyway to refer to my alleged drunken conduct, my threats, intimidation and distress inflicted upon Mrs xxxxxx? It is only in the third email some 9 hours later that you decide to refer to it. Albeit that you found my tone so offensive that you deemed it necessary to threaten to report me to the police. Is it not somewhat astonishing, that you should fail to refer to my conduct following our 27 second telephone call in either of those first two emails when one would reasonably assume that if you were going to respond you would not forget to make any reference to it whatsoever?

Other than in full cooperation with the property ombudsman and legal authorities I now withdraw from any further dialogue or communication with yourself.

Yours sincerely,
Graham Evans
Managing Director

gauk

View more posts from this author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *