In short: Almost certainly not without cost, and possibly not at all during a defined period, most agency agreements include a “commission protection” or tenant-introduction clause that entitles the agent to a fee if you let (or re-let) the property to a tenant they introduced, even after you’ve ended the management agreement, often for 6–12 months and sometimes considerably longer. These clauses are generally enforceable. Check your specific contract before doing anything, because acting on assumption rather than the actual wording is where landlords get caught out.
Why this clause exists
Letting agents earn their fee largely from the work of finding and referencing a tenant, advertising, viewings, referencing, right-to-rent checks, drawing up the tenancy. If a landlord could simply end the management agreement the moment a good tenant was found and then deal with that same tenant directly (or through a cheaper agent) for the rest of the relationship, the agent would do all the up-front work and receive none of the ongoing value. Commission protection clauses exist to stop exactly that, they’re standard across the industry, not a sign of a rogue agent.
How the clause typically works
Wording varies, but the common structure is:
- The agent is entitled to a fee (often equivalent to their letting or management fee, or the finder’s fee) if the landlord lets the property, directly or through another party, to a tenant the agent introduced
- This applies for a defined protected period after the agency agreement ends, commonly 6–12 months, though some contracts extend this much further (multi-year, or even for as long as that specific tenant remains in the property)
- It typically applies whether the new arrangement is a private tenancy you set up yourself, a renewal you negotiate directly, or an instruction to a different agent
- Some contracts phrase this as a percentage of the annual rent, others as a flat fee, others as an ongoing percentage for the length of that tenancy
Is it enforceable?
Generally, yes. Courts and regulators have found these clauses enforceable as legitimate contractual terms, provided they’re not drafted or applied unfairly. That said, there are limits:
- Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Section 62 and related provisions on unfair terms), a clause can be challenged if it creates a “significant imbalance” in the parties’ rights to the landlord’s detriment, for example, an unreasonably long protected period, a fee wildly disproportionate to the service provided, or a clause the landlord wasn’t given a fair chance to understand before signing
- The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has previously taken action against agents (including a well-known case involving Foxtons around automatic renewal and third-party commissions) over similarly structured tie-in terms judged unfair
- Whether a specific clause is enforceable depends heavily on its exact wording, how clearly it was presented, and how proportionate the fee and time period are, this is genuinely a “read your contract, and if in doubt get it checked” situation rather than a blanket yes or no
What to actually do
- Find your specific agreement and read the termination and commission clauses carefully, look for terms like “introduction fee,” “commission protection,” “tenant find,” or wording that survives termination of the main agreement
- Check the protected period and the fee structure, is it time-limited, and if so for how long? Is the fee a flat amount, a percentage, or ongoing?
- If the wording is unclear or you think it’s unfair, get it reviewed, a solicitor or the Independent Landlord-type resources can usually assess enforceability faster and more cheaply than the potential cost of getting it wrong
- Consider negotiating a buy-out, many agents will accept a reduced, one-off fee to release you from the clause early, especially if you’ve been a decent client and are upfront about wanting to self-manage or switch. This is often far cheaper than either paying full ongoing commission or risking a legal dispute.
- If the numbers don’t favour an early exit, wait out the restricted period, once it lapses, you’re free to deal directly with the tenant without triggering the clause
The practical and ethical case for not just ignoring it
Beyond the legal risk, there’s a straightforward fairness argument: the agent did put in the work to find and reference that tenant, and the fee structure was presumably visible (or at least available) when you signed the original agreement. Quietly cutting them out the moment you’ve built rapport with the tenant, while technically tempting, is the kind of move that damages your standing with agents generally and can result in a legitimate invoice, a debt recovery process, or in more serious cases, a small claims action against you for the fee owed.
The better path is almost always: read the clause, understand exactly what it costs and for how long, and then make a clear-eyed decision, pay it, negotiate it down, or wait it out, rather than assuming it doesn’t apply or hoping it won’t be enforced.
Related reading
- 50 Questions From Landlords, Answered (all 50 questions)
- our letting agent fees breakdown
- our let-only agreement overview
Sources
This is general information, not legal, tax, or financial advice. Rules referenced are accurate to the best of available information as of July 2026 for England unless stated otherwise. Always check current government guidance (gov.uk) or consult a solicitor for your specific situation.
Last Updated on September 21, 2026