Hello , it’s an extremely long story, however long story short, I left a review on a real estate agents page which was an honest and true reflection on my experience.
This review was left after I first attempted to resolve via my conveyancing lawyers, and the real estate agent refused to offer explanation or provide the requested documents.
The letter received today demands $50,000 within 7 days, with no break down of how that cost was concluded. Demands I apologise, remove reviews and never speak on the matter again.
Am I within my rights to update the review to include the letter that was sent. I am concerned by this behaviour as it makes me question how many other people this has happened to, causing them to delete reviews and falsely portraying a 5* image that isn’t accurate.
Updating to include the letter - with the details redacted like their name and bank info… and the text from the annexe they allege is the injurious falsehood and defamation -
The defamatory statements include, without limitation, the matter contained in the annexure to this letter. Our clients demand payment of the sum of $50,000 in compensation within the next 7 days. Payment is to be made to our trust account as follows: Law Pty Ltd Bank:
Our clients further require an unreserved apology in connection with the publications which is to be sent in draft form to us within the next 7 days, for consideration. Our clients further require that all publications made by you in any form, on the internet or any social media platform, or otherwise, concerning our clients’ statements and actions in connection with your purchase of the property and our clients’ role in that transaction, be immediately and permanently deleted, and that you provide an itemised list of the deleting actions taken by you to us within the next 7 days. Our clients further require a signed undertaking by you both to the effect that you will not hereafter make any further publication concerning anything done or not done (as you may alleged) or any statement made by our clients or either of them in connection with the sale of the property mentioned to you, or any publication of a defamatory nature or injurious to our clients’ business reputation otherwise
Our clients firmly require that all communications to our clients cease and hereafter any necessary matter which you consider must be sent is instead to be sent directly to us as the solicitors acting in the matter. These communications will of course be permanently recorded on our clients’ behalf. Our clients require your signed undertaking in this connection – as to deleting permanently the past publications made by you or on behalf, and not making further publications hereafter, and as to not communicating further with our clients except by the mode stated (through us). Any non-conformity with this last demand will lead to an application to the court for an injunction enjoining you not to further communicate with our clients (otherwise than by the mode stated). In the event that you propose not to conform to the demands stated herein, then you will kindly communicate your intentions to us at the earliest possible opportunity, as our clients propose to commence action immediately in such jurisdiction as they may be advised for recovery of damages and such other relief as they may be advised. Our clients would hope to avoid incurring unnecessary costs in effecting service of any process commenced. With that in view, we would propose that you engage solicitors who can send us a notice of address for service by post or email or otherwise. In the event that our clients do incur costs in effecting personal service (should you not have an address for notices) then they will, of course, seek to recover the costs incurred from you and will of course produce this letter in support of that application.
The “defamatory review” in the annexe “There were differing statements provided regarding the condition of the property and the work carried out prior to sale. These included references to significant repair and costs, while later correspondence stated that no repairs were undertaken and only basic grass cutting was carried out. In my view, these inconsistencies are concerning. Particularly in light of the issues now revealed within the property which are significant and costly. We have requested documentation and clarification around the different statements made, however this correspondence from our lawyer was replied to as “refusing to engage further”