Avoid broker fees?

At most through the land register, but they don't give information to just anyone either..

That's right, definitely not just anyone, unless the broker was really called that. The land registry office will provide the information as soon as there is a legitimate interest. And proving that will certainly not be difficult for the broker. Alternatively, he could try it through the building authority/cadastral office or similar, as they also know the owner after a certain amount of time.

I have no problem paying a person fairly for their performance. But he almost prevented the purchase. He did not do his part: to clarify in advance whether our desired amount fits, it was 154,000 to 140,000. He always said he works for me because I pay him. The next day he took another client to the property and then advertised that the client would pay more and that the owner should sell it to him. With that, he clearly acted against my interests.

One idea would be that my partner buys the property. He did not bring her in, he does not have her name or address. The question is how we handle that with the land register or the loan.

And again. I pay every person what they deserve. But the broker rather hindered the purchase than contributed to it.

I have no problem paying a person fairly for their performance. But he almost prevented the purchase. He didn’t do his part:

I don’t want to speak against you now, but that is your point of view and therefore subjective. However, the agent has already done his job by putting you in contact with the owner and must be compensated for it.

One idea would be that my partner buys the property. He did not mediate for her; he does not have her name or address. The question is, how do we manage that with the land register or the loan.

I wouldn’t want to take that risk. Either bite the bullet or look for another property.

As I said before: after a deal, the affected person only sees themselves. The fact that creating a listing is also time-consuming is not seen: every word written there must be checked or developed by the agent. Otherwise, he would be a fraud

Well, an agent is usually not liable for his statements about a property, so ...

We also considered selling our apartment through an agent, but they all would have taken at least €10,000 in total and we would have only realized the true effort after the contract was signed. That is the fundamental problem. Therefore, we sold it ourselves via ImmoScout. One month listing, three hours of work for the listing (including photos over several days so that everything unwanted could be cleared away) and 12 viewings were needed. One week before the listing expired, we had three binding offers at the listed price. An agent would certainly have saved us one or two viewings, but that was worth the savings ;).

He always said he worked for me because I was paying him. The next day he showed another client the property and then advertised that the other client would pay more and the owner should sell it to him. That clearly acted against my interests.

This is all very confusing. Your information also raises more questions than would normally be necessary.

I still haven't understood who actually commissioned whom:

We found a nice plot after a long search.

OK, you found it and did not just receive an address. This assumption becomes more concrete through:

Unfortunately, a real estate agent got involved.

So you did not commission the agent, but he either got involved on his own or was commissioned by the seller.

In advance, I asked the agent if there was any room to negotiate on the price.

So you knew about the agent and also discussed the modalities of a possible purchase with him. This again looks as if the seller commissioned the agent.

He then allegedly consulted with the seller. Only upon that consent did I agree to an appointment.

I don’t understand that at all. I think you found a plot, probably received the address from the agent, arranged an appointment with him on-site. The agent was late to this appointment, and you had already talked well with the property owner. Anyway, somehow you were there and the agent apparently had not informed the seller about your intent to negotiate.

He then let me do everything.

Was there a contract about negotiating the price with the seller? It sounds like you would not have done the meeting if the agent had not hinted at a possible price reduction. Did he say the seller would also sell for less?

In the end, there was no deal.

There never is at this stage, since a property purchase requires a notarized purchase contract. Even if you had said "yes" at the meeting, it wouldn’t conclude the purchase.

Only a few days later the owner called us again and asked if we wanted to meet again without the agent. During a good conversation, the owner told us he had also seen the agent for the first time.

That now sounds as if he did not commission the agent. That surprises me if an agent positions himself in front of the house and tries to offer it without being commissioned. Honestly, I cannot believe that.

Within those three days, the agent brought another interested party, even though we still wanted to negotiate the price.

Well, that is also his job, assuming the seller somehow did commission him after all, which I suspect.

The owner then suggested that we handle the purchase without the agent.

Why would he want to do that if you want to pay less than the other interested parties might? Very strange, unless the other interested parties are just "straw men" to push you into buying.

Well, now my question is, is that possible? What do we have to do to get that unpleasant agent out of the business?

Let me summarize my impression:

You contacted the agent and got the address of this property. The offered purchase price was too high and you thought there was room for negotiation. The agent was supposed to find out if the price could still be lowered.

The agent (business-minded) didn’t deny this but possibly indicated that price negotiations were possible. This led to an on-site appointment where the agent was not yet there. You talked nicely with the seller and the agent arrived later. Regarding the price, the seller was unprepared and probably (understandably) initially refused.

So there was no initial verbal agreement.

The agent then brought in another interested party and the seller contacted you directly, because he would rather forgo money and sell to you for less. Or he insisted on his price and said that though you were very likable, he would much rather sell to you. You could save on the agent’s commission since he had not signed a written contract with the agent, so you could sell to your wife without him (kind of secretly).

Honestly? If I got 5 euros for every such case, I could easily afford a wonderful trip to the Caribbean. You just want to avoid paying the agent’s commission, nothing more, nothing less.

I’ll keep my fingers crossed for your upcoming proceedings; the agent doesn’t need my support. ;)

I really can't stand real estate agents at all but in this case you can hardly get out of it. You shouldn't have asked for a brochure and also no address. If you had found the listing online, had known where it is and had gone there, the agent would have serious problems proving his work. (of course you say that you heard something here and there about the sales intentions)

If you really want the property, you should come to an agreement with the owner. Because he MUST have commissioned the agent and can at least partly pay the bill.

because he MUST have commissioned the broker and can at least partly pay the bill.

NO! The contract between broker and buyer can be concluded completely independently of the seller. Example: You commission a broker: look for a plot of land 600-800m² in the best location in Buxtehude. He finds one from a private seller, establishes contact and you buy. Commission is due.