I thought the judge didnt have to decide on whether charging commission on renewals was unfair in itself.

http://www.estatesgazette.com/blogs/property-law/

Hi Christian,

According to the judgement, one of the issues raised was "Are the third party renewal commission provisions unfair?" And the judge does take a view on this.

You can download the actual judgement using this link: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1681.rtf

Do, please, let me know if I'm wrong, though... I suspect you're better qualified than me to interpret this. But if I'm right, isn't it ultimately a victory for Foxtons (and the other lettings agents) rather than the defeat being reported in the popular press?

Ben

My reading of para 33 was that he did not decide on whether, in principle, renewal fees would or would not ever be unfair.

In paragraph 33 of his judgement Mr Justice Mann said the following:

"I should first make clear what I am not deciding, and what I am not asked to decide. I am not asked to decide, and do not decide, that renewal commissions (in the sense used in these proceedings) are always unfair. I make that clear because some of the evidence and submissions of the OFT come close to asserting a case that they are always unfair, and some of the correspondence seemed to be based on such a proposition, though Mr Nicholas Green QC, for the OFT, eventually made it clear that that was not his case. Mr Michael Kent QC, for Foxtons, opened his submissions by saying that I would eventually have to, and should, rule on renewal commission generally, but he moved away from that. I shall not decide whether or not renewal commission is always unfair to consumer landlords."

I may just be hair-splitting though and this may be one of those cases where everyone claims victory.

This information is true