By Lesley Horton, the UK’s Chief Property Ombudsman
Dual fee disputes remain one of the most persistent and complex issues in the residential property sector. They are also among the most distressing for consumers, often involving unexpected claims for thousands of pounds long after a transaction has completed.
It can be tempting to attribute these disputes to individual failings or poor conduct, but the evidence tells a different story. In most cases, dual fee disputes are not a people problem. They are a process problem.
A pattern of avoidable disputes
We continue to see cases where more than one agent claims a commission fee for the same sale. These disputes typically arise in two scenarios: where a second agent is instructed during a sole agency agreement, or where multiple agents are instructed on a multi-agency basis.
While the circumstances vary, the underlying causes are strikingly consistent. Failures to communicate risks, unclear contractual terms, and gaps in record keeping are common threads.
Importantly, this is not an issue confined to any one part of the market. Both independent and corporate agents appear in our casework. The risk exists wherever processes are not sufficiently robust.
The real cost of getting it wrong
The consequences of these disputes are significant. Over the past year, the average compensation we’ve awarded in dual fee cases has been £5,571, compared with an average of £616 for other types of complaints.
For agents, this can mean lost revenue, reputational damage and considerable time spent resolving disputes. For consumers, the impact is often more personal.
We regularly see cases where a homeowner, having completed their sale and settled into a new property, receives an unexpected demand for payment months later. In some instances, this comes via a debt collection agency.
For many consumers, the issue is not simply the sum demanded but the feeling of being pursued after they believed everything was settled. When a claim is escalated to debt collection agents, the experience can feel intimidating and disproportionate, even where liability is ultimately disputed or not proven.
In most circumstances, it is not appropriate for a consumer to pay more than one commission fee for the same sale. When that risk materialises, it is usually an indication that something in the process has broken down.
Where processes fall short
At the heart of many disputes is a lack of clarity at key stages of the transaction.
Contracts are not always as clear or comprehensive as they should be. Consumers may not fully understand when a fee becomes payable, how it is calculated or the circumstances in which multiple fees could arise.
Communication can also be inconsistent and sometimes fails to address the risks of paying more than one commission fee. We also see instances where consumers are not always given timely, accurate and understandable information about their obligations, particularly when instructing more than one agent or moving from sole to multi-agency arrangements.
Record-keeping is another critical factor. Where agents are unable to produce concurrent notes, viewing records or evidence of communication, it becomes far more difficult to establish what has happened and why.
Even where the concept of ‘effective introduction’ is central to determining fee entitlement, disputes often arise because the evidential trail is incomplete or unclear.
None of these issues point to deliberate wrongdoing. Instead, they highlight weaknesses in processes that leave both agents and consumers exposed.
A shared responsibility
Preventing dual fee disputes requires a collective focus on process improvement across the sector.
Agents must ensure that contractual arrangements are clear, comprehensive and properly documented from the outset. This includes clearly setting out agency periods, termination procedures and the circumstances in which fees become payable.
There must also be greater emphasis on communication. Consumers must be given clear warnings about the risk of multiple commission fees, particularly when instructing additional agents or entering into sole selling rights agreements.
Equally, agents should take proactive steps to understand any existing agreements when taking on a new instruction. This includes establishing whether there are ongoing liabilities and obtaining details of previous viewings wherever possible.
Robust record keeping is essential too. Clear, contemporaneous records provide the foundation for resolving disputes fairly and efficiently. Without them, it becomes far more likely that a claim will fail or that a consumer will be unfairly affected.
Professionals should also reflect carefully before advancing a fee demand where the evidential basis is weak. On occasion, we see claims for commission fee with very little foundation. We recognise that agents may feel under pressure to collect fees, especially in difficult financial times. However, ethical conduct should not be compromised. Claims for fees should be supported by clear contractual entitlement and a robust paper trail such as signed terms, agreed instruction dates, a documented effective introduction, and contemporaneous records of communication and viewings.
Where those fundamentals are missing, pursuing payment (or escalating to debt recovery) is unlikely to be justified and may increase the risk of an adverse finding, compensation for avoidable aggravation, and lasting reputational damage.
Our checklists can help agents identify whether a commission claim is likely to be justified or not. We encourage our members to use the resources we provide to avoid issues escalating to us and exacerbating consumer distress,
Resolving disputes before they escalate
When dual fee issues do arise, early resolution is critical. Agents should make every effort to resolve disputes with each other before they escalate without consumers being placed in the middle of competing claims. Consumers are entitled to expect that agents will act in a way that protects them from unnecessary financial and emotional strain.
Consumers should never be used as leverage in a disagreement between professionals. Where there is a genuine dispute about entitlement, it is for agents to evidence and resolve it without pressuring or prematurely pursuing the consumer.
Failure to engage constructively at this stage can prolong disputes and increase the likelihood of compensation being awarded for the additional aggravation caused.
A process-led path forward
Dual fee disputes are rarely the result of isolated individual failings but the outcome of processes that do not consistently deliver clarity, transparency and accountability.
By strengthening those processes, the sector has a real opportunity to reduce both the frequency and impact of these disputes. Our guidance and checklists support our members in getting this issue right.
Ultimately, it is through these practical improvements that agents can protect their businesses, uphold professional standards and deliver better outcomes for consumers.
