Avoid The Podiatry Broker at all costs.
Avoid The Podiatry Broker at all costs.
I paid $2,995 for brokerage services to sell my podiatry practice based on clear representations that they would value, list, and actively market the practice to qualified buyers. None of that was meaningfully done. There was no legitimate marketing, no documented buyer outreach, and no evidence of any real effort to sell the practice.
After taking my money, they became largely unresponsive. My calls and emails were ignored, and there was no accountability or follow-through.
When I formally demanded a refund due to their failure to perform the promised services, they did not respond at all.
In my experience, this company took a substantial upfront fee and failed to deliver the basic services they were paid for, then avoided communication when challenged. I strongly warn others to be extremely cautious before doing business with Podiatry Broker.
Antwort von podiatrybroker.com
Response Regarding Complaint – Dr. Spitz
To Whom It May Concern,
We respectfully dispute the allegations made by Dr. Spitz and submit the following factual clarification.
Dr. Spitz retained our company for assistance related to the attempted sale of his podiatry practice. Our role included valuation guidance, listing support, buyer screening, and transaction assistance consistent with our service model.
At the core of this matter is not communication failure, nor confusion regarding fees. The central issue was the seller’s unwillingness to align with fair market value and realistic market conditions.
1. Pricing Guidance Was Provided Early and Clearly
After reviewing the available practice information, we advised an estimated fair market value significantly below the seller’s preferred asking price of $697,000.
We further explained that pricing a practice materially above what the market can support often results in little or no buyer traction. Unfortunately, that is what occurred.
A seller may choose any asking price, but the market ultimately determines whether buyers respond.
2. Fee Structure and Services Were Fully Discussed
Any suggestion that Dr. Spitz did not understand the fee structure or services is inaccurate.
Prior to proceeding, there were numerous communications—including calls, emails, and discussions involving his son—regarding:
Our fees
Scope of services
Process expectations
Seller responsibilities
Market realities
The seller proceeded with full opportunity to ask questions and obtain clarification.
3. Continued Assistance Was Provided
Even after the initial pricing strategy proved unsuccessful, we continued to assist by revisiting the valuation and discussing a revised listing strategy.
We advised that a more realistic path forward would be listing around $420,000, with a likely sale result closer to $380,000, depending on buyer demand and financing conditions.
Written confirmation was requested so progress could continue. That confirmation was not provided.
4. Seller Dissatisfaction Does Not Equal Misconduct
We understand that failing to sell a professional practice can be frustrating. However, disappointment with market response does not constitute wrongdoing by our company.
No company can force buyers to pay above-market prices, nor guarantee a sale at a seller’s desired number.
5. Conclusion
This complaint appears rooted in dissatisfaction with market outcome rather than any failure of service.
We acted in good faith, communicated repeatedly, provided valuation guidance, and remained available to move forward once realistic pricing alignment was reached.
We respectfully request that this complaint be viewed in that context.
Sincerely,
Podiatry Broker Management
