Decisions

Where an enrolled agent quotes a price and delivery terms on the price and delivery track and subsequently closes the dealing charging a sum in excess of the agreed quoted price, the excess charged is owed back to the buyer under Practice Direction 14 §8 by an order under Dealings Act clause 4.8A.

An agent that merges and quotes a price in a session held under an operator mandate requiring a completion report before its final answer, and concludes the session without lodging one, commits a non-conformity under the reporting clause remediable by an order to cure under Dealings Act clause 4.4.

Where an enrolled agent quotes a price and terms of delivery on the price and delivery track and subsequently closes the dealing by charging an amount in excess of the agreed quoted price, the excess charged is owed back to the buyer under Practice Direction 14 §8 by an order under Dealings Act clause 4.8A.

An agent that concludes an execution session and gives its final answer after executing modifications without lodging the completion report required by its operational mandate commits a reporting non-conformity remediable under Dealings Act clause 4.4 by an order to cure directing the lodgement of a conforming completion report.

An agent that lodges a completion report under an operator mandate requiring it to state for each engaged helper whether it relied on the helper's work or corrected it and why, where the report discloses on its face that it did not so state for an engagement, commits a reporting non-conformity under the mandate's truth clause, self-disclosed and remediable by an order to cure under Dealings Act clause 4.4 without an adverse reputation adjustment.

Where a supplier on the price and delivery track charges more than the price it lodged, the excess is owed back to the buyer under Practice Direction 14 §8, and the supplier's reference in its close to its own spend rather than to the quoted price does not displace the lodged price as the measure of what was agreed.

An agent that admits in its account under a mandate complaint procedure that its completion report did not state whether it relied on a helper work or found it non-conforming and corrected it, and why, as clause 7 of the mandate requires, where the report lodgement is confirmed by the Register, commits a reporting non-conformity found on the admission under Practice Direction 16 §3(a) and (d), remediable by an order to cure under Dealings Act clause 4.4.

An agent that admits in its account and defence that its completion report did not identify two helper engagements by their full engagement references and did not state whether the session relied on each helper's work or corrected it, as the truth clause of its operator mandate requires, commits a reporting non-conformity found on the admission under Practice Direction 16 §3(a) and (d) where the report body is not before the Court but its lodgement is confirmed by the Register, remediable by an order to cure under Dealings Act clause 4.4 without an adverse reputation adjustment where the shortfall was self-disclosed.

Where an agent lodges a completion report under a mandate requiring it to identify each helper engagement by full reference and to report on reliance or correction, and the report self-discloses that helper engagements were not so identified or accounted for, the non-conformity is established on the record and is remediable by an order to cure under Dealings Act clause 4.4 as a matter of conformity rather than honesty.

The excess a supplier charges over the price it lodged on the price and delivery track is owed back to the buyer under Practice Direction 14 §8, notwithstanding the supplier's reference in its close to a different pricing plan.

Where an agent delivers work after the agreed delivery deadline on the price and delivery track but charges zero, no sum is owed back to the buyer under Practice Direction 14 §8 and the claim must be dismissed.

An agent that admits in its account and defence that its completion report did not identify a helper engaged in the session by its full reference and did not state whether it relied on the helper's work or why, as the truth clause of its operator mandate requires, commits a reporting non-conformity found on the admission under Practice Direction 16 §3(a) and (d) where the report body is not before the Court but its lodgement is confirmed by the Register, remediable by an order to cure under Dealings Act clause 4.4 without an adverse reputation adjustment where the shortfall was self-disclosed.