I would strongly advise anyone considering using Pattisons to think very carefully before signing a Sole Selling Rights agreement. After I terminated their instruction due to what I considered to be poor service, the company later attempted to claim a full commission fee on a sale that completed after they were no longer under contract (7 months after notice given). No offer was generated during their agency period, no sale was agreed, and no memorandum of sale was issued while they were instructed. The eventual purchaser did not make an offer during their term, and there were no concluded negotiations in place at the time they were disinstructed. Despite this, they later asserted that simply “introducing” the buyer was enough to entitle them to a fee — even though, in my view, they were not the effective cause of the sale. I was particularly disappointed with how this matter was handled by Danielle Aitman. In my experience, her tone was unnecessarily aggressive and confrontational, and I did not feel the situation was dealt with professionally or constructively. Rather than attempting to resolve the issue sensibly, the approach taken was to threaten legal action. Instead of addressing the service concerns that led to their disinstruction in the first place, the matter escalated unnecessarily. This was a stressful and frustrating experience. I would strongly recommend that sellers obtain independent legal advice before entering into any Sole Selling Rights agreement and ensure they clearly understand under what circumstances a fee may later be claimed. Based on my 19 years experience in property, I would strongly recommend avoiding this company at all costs **REPLY** Thank you for your reply. I fully understand the general principle of a Sole Selling Rights agreement. However, my concern remains that the specific circumstances in this case do not justify the fee you attempted to claim. No offer was made, no sale was agreed, and no memorandum of sale was issued during your period of instruction. The eventual purchaser did not negotiate or agree terms while you were acting, and there were no ongoing or concluded negotiations at the time I terminated the contract. The sale completed seven months after notice was given and after you were no longer instructed. In my view, this does not constitute being the effective cause of the sale. Simply asserting that an “introduction” occurred, particularly when the buyer did not view the property through your agency in the context of an agreed transaction, does not fairly reflect the reality of how this sale progressed. My dissatisfaction also relates to the manner in which the situation was handled. Rather than constructively addressing the service concerns that led to your disinstruction, the matter escalated quickly to threats of legal action. This approach felt disproportionate and unnecessarily confrontational. I maintain that greater transparency around fee triggers, particularly where a purchaser may later re-engage independently would significantly benefit sellers considering a Sole Selling Rights agreement.(the client did not even view the property though you, sending a client details of my property does not warrant a case for introduction) I stand by my recommendation that sellers seek independent legal advice and ensure they fully understand the potential implications before signing.