A well-established estate agent in Belfast has been fined £1,000 for breaches of trading regulations in a dispute over seeking his commission after a property sale fell through.

Des McGranaghan, 58, accepted a failure to fully explain the circumstances in which the vendor would have to pay, and also admitted a misleading omission to alert the prospective seller to a redress scheme.

Belfast Magistrates’ Court heard Trading Standards Service launched an investigation last year following a complaint by a woman who put her house on the market through McGranaghan’s agency.

The arrangement included an agency fee of 0.75% of the ultimate sale price plus VAT.

Although an agreement was reached to sell the house for £305,000, the purchaser withdrew her offer a couple of months later because she could not find anywhere else to live.

Prosecutor Mark Conlon said McGranaghan then pursued her for £3,397, representing the full 0.75% of the achieved sale price plus costs.

“This debt was then referred on to a debt collection agency,” Conlon explained.

She refused to pay the estate agency fee, alleging that some of the terms had not been properly explained.

The court heard that Trading Standards assessed the sale technically fell through before the property was taken off the market.

It identified a lack of clarity and adequate explanation, required under the Estate Agency Act 1979, from McGranaghan in claiming the fee.

He was also prosecuted for an alleged failure to provide information about a Property Redress Scheme after the issue arose.

In court he pleaded guilty to two contraventions of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

Defence counsel Sean O’Hare argued that they were technical breaches by a respected and trusted estate agent with an impeccable record.

“He has been in business for 30 years, with an enviable reputation in the areas in which he operates,” the barrister said.

O’Hare insisted his client used a standard form of contract without any problems in the vast majority of cases where house sales are completed.

But he claimed the legislation is vague about the final fee that a vendor has to pay.

“It should have been made more clear that if the estate agent finds a purchaser, everybody is agreeable on the price and then the property gets withdrawn from the market, in those circumstances the fee will be paid,” he said.

District Judge George Conner was told McGranaghan does have information about a redress scheme posted on the company’s website, literature and office doors.

“But on this occasion the defendant accepts it wasn’t discussed with the vendor whenever she made it clear she wouldn’t be paying any part of the bill,” counsel submitted. “There was nothing that was any sort of sharp practice on the part of Mr McGranaghan.”

Judge Conner imposed fines of £600 and £400 for the two breaches.

He said: “It is a serious matter. The sale of houses is something that is such a regular thing that it needs to be done right.”