If my offer on a property is accepted, shouldn’t the agent concerned take it off the market?

Some estate agents will specifically request their clients’ instructions on this matter. In most cases, however, the tacit assumption is made that once an offer has been accepted, active marketing should cease – although this does not absolve agents of their legal obligation to continue passing on any unsolicited offers which they may subsequently receive, unless specifically instructed not to do so. That said, the fact remains that a seller is perfectly within his rights to require marketing to continue right up to exchange of contracts. Indeed, some types of seller – for example, corporate clients, or lenders looking to dispose of repossessed properties – routinely do so. And even if a property has been removed from the market, there is nothing to stop a seller changing his mind at a later date. Much is made by consumer groups of the apparent unfairness of this situation. However, it’s worth pointing out that buyers are equally free to change their minds – and frequently do. That is the nature of our system. Nothing is legally binding on either party until exchange. What is the role of the estate agent in all this? Well, ultimately, of course, we are employed by the seller. We are – literally – his agent in the transaction. Nevertheless, only very rarely might we advise a client to continue marketing his property once a firm offer has been accepted – and then only if we start to have grave doubts about the current buyer’s ability to proceed. Why? Well, primarily because we would be legally obliged to inform the latter of the fact, in writing – and therefore risk losing him altogether. The old saying about a bird in the hand has rarely been as relevant as it is in the current climate! From time to time it has been suggested that England and Wales should adopt a similar system to that employed in other countries, where an offer becomes legally binding on both parties as soon as it is agreed. That would certainly address this particular issue once and for all. But then again, is it really so unreasonable that both parties to such a significant transaction should have adequate time to reflect and even reconsider, before committing themselves irrevocably? I’m not sure it is.