A couple of things

I am pleased to see an ex employee of foxtons tell us what we all know about how they work and what their real feelings are towards the general public and their clients. Unfortunately due to the nature of my job, I came into close contact with this repugnant organisation very frequently. It is no surprise to me they perenially deceive, lie and cheat in order to obtain revenue.

I am heartened by the position taken by the "establishment" i.e the judiciary, trading, environmental and consumer groups, all of which continue without respite, their attack on this hideous boil on the skin of commercial activity in this country. Foxtons, to my knowledge, have lost the last 3 court actions concerning fee commissions, overturning some "sacred cows" of agency i.e if you introduce a purchaser, you get the fee. Not any more. Hamptons received the fee for a purchaser introduced by Foxtons recently. Foxtons spent a great deal of money on this court action and the subsequent appeal.

The Office of Fair Trading have brought a case to the High Court to challenge the idea that an agent can receive fees from rental introductions ad infinitum.

In the name of all that is decent, I would urge ANYBODY who have been adversely affected by their practices to take legal action. The clear message coming out of the courts is - "we have had have enough of this repulsive company and we will support your claim".

 

 

 

why is there so much hatred to this company?? i used foxtons and there wasn't any problem with my flat and hasn't been for the past year. they were young but proffessional and found me my perfect flat

lost three!!!! wow!!!! how many have they won??? and how many other agents have gone to court over fees???

I think this website gives a voice to all those who have been shafted by this company yet not had sufficient grounds to sue them. It's obvious there will be many satisfied customers but after trawling through thess posts it's quite clear so many people have been trodden and frustrated their trust has been abused. The once ingenuous warning the naive. Or perhaps it's just comforting to know they're not the only ones taken in by their flashy image. I don't honestly think this site will affect their turnover. Let's face it the BBC had far more coverage http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/magazine/4826444.stm in 2006.