DD
Denise Dark
Apr 14, 2026
We engaged Paviour Property Services to market our business under a sole selling rights agreement, on the basis that we were working with a professional partner who valued clarity and fairness in how such arrangements are applied in practice.
From the outset, both our conversations and written correspondence gave us the clear understanding that commission would only become payable upon the successful completion of a sale. However, when a prospective buyer made an offer that did not proceed to completion, PPS adopted a very different position — asserting that their full commission was due regardless.
This was difficult to reconcile. No sale completed, no contracts were exchanged, and no funds were received, yet the full fee was still pursued.
Even where terms had been set out in writing, our experience of how those terms were later interpreted and applied differed significantly from what we had reasonably understood at the time.
As matters progressed, the tone of communication became increasingly adversarial. References were made to the matter being “personal”, alongside statements expressing a desire to face us “across the room in front of a Judge”. Terms such as “accusations”, “finger-pointing”, and “lies” were also used without any clear explanation, which did not assist in resolving what should have remained a straightforward commercial discussion.
There was also repeated emphasis on escalation — including references to CCJs, enforcement action and rising costs — which, in the context of what was ultimately a small claim, felt disproportionate and did little to provide clarity.
A debt recovery agent was also engaged at an early stage, before any meaningful attempt had been made to resolve the matter directly. From our perspective, this felt disproportionate in the circumstances and did not assist in reaching a constructive outcome.
At one stage, we were asked to make payment to a third party rather than the named claimant. From our perspective, this raised understandable concerns and required clarification before we could proceed. The position was later revised following our challenge.
There were also inconsistencies in the approach taken. A fee initially described as “non-negotiable” was later reduced, and differing positions were presented regarding how payment should be made, which added to the overall uncertainty.
A formal court mediation session took place but did not lead to any meaningful engagement on the core issues, nor any movement on the principal sum despite attempts on our part to reach a proportionate resolution.
On a personal level, this period coincided with a close family bereavement. While this may not have been known at the outset, it was raised during correspondence. There was no acknowledgment of this at any stage.
Ultimately, the matter would have proceeded to court; however, we chose to settle pragmatically in order to bring closure, rather than as any acceptance of the position that had been advanced.
Overall, this experience was markedly different from what we would normally expect when engaging a professional business transfer agent.
In our view, it is often how a company responds when issues arise that best reflects its professionalism.
For prospective clients, it may be worth taking extra care to fully understand how commission terms may be interpreted and applied in practice, particularly where a transaction does not proceed to completion.