PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.Misrepresented house sale has fallen through - can I claim for costs?
ajm410
Posts: 136 Forumite
Hi all,
I've recently tried buying a flat, which has fallen through as a result of it being misrepresented to me.
It was advertised as a share of the freehold property, for which a price was agreed upon; however, upon my solicitor receiving contracts from the seller's, it turned out that it was in fact a leasehold property with a short lease. I was told this mistake was due to the seller misunderstood the situation when listing the flat with the estate agent...
Despite my annoyance, I said I would be prepared to continue if they take half the estimated cost of renewing the lease (which I planned to undertake after living there for 2 years) of the agreed price (appox. 5k) - they have said that they are not prepared to do this, and so I have told them I do not wish to proceed.
Obviously, I have incurred some legal costs throughout this process due to this misrepresentation - does anyone know if I am in a position where I can attempt to claim it back from the seller/agent easily?
Thanks as always!
I've recently tried buying a flat, which has fallen through as a result of it being misrepresented to me.
It was advertised as a share of the freehold property, for which a price was agreed upon; however, upon my solicitor receiving contracts from the seller's, it turned out that it was in fact a leasehold property with a short lease. I was told this mistake was due to the seller misunderstood the situation when listing the flat with the estate agent...
Despite my annoyance, I said I would be prepared to continue if they take half the estimated cost of renewing the lease (which I planned to undertake after living there for 2 years) of the agreed price (appox. 5k) - they have said that they are not prepared to do this, and so I have told them I do not wish to proceed.
Obviously, I have incurred some legal costs throughout this process due to this misrepresentation - does anyone know if I am in a position where I can attempt to claim it back from the seller/agent easily?
Thanks as always!
0
Comments
-
No chance. The agent will say they acted in good faith on information given by the seller.0
-
Thought not; thanks!0
-
you could sue them for misrepresentation, they have been negligent in checking the details of what they are selling.0
-
-
The estate agents have to provide you with the correct information for you to be able to make an informed decision. They have clearly not checked the basics of the property they are listing. A simple look at the title etc.. would of told them that. They should not be relying on a SPIF form from the seller.0
-
The estate agents have to provide you with the correct information for you to be able to make an informed decision. They have clearly not checked the basics of the property they are listing. A simple look at the title etc.. would of told them that. They should not be relying on a SPIF form from the seller.
Estate agents don't look at the title though, Its not their job to do so0 -
They should be, it may not be a specific role they have to do. but they should be providing the correct information on a property for the buyer to be able to make an informed decision. It is mis-advertising/misrepresentation. Alternatively sue the seller, get / keep a copy of the SPIF form, that forms part of the legal contract.0
-
They should be, it may not be a specific role they have to do. but they should be providing the correct information on a property for the buyer to be able to make an informed decision. It is mis-advertising/misrepresentation.Alternatively sue the seller, get / keep a copy of the SPIF form, that forms part of the legal contract.0
-
That's true, but you have instructed / enter into a contract with a solicitor based on the information you have been provided, which is incorrect. If the information had been correct he would not of entered into that contract with the solicitor and hence not incurring any costs.
The only way would be to sue the EA/Seller. I have/am going through the same process at the moment after having a complaint to the TPO dismissed on the grounds its a consumer/solicitor issue, and was advised to continue my case through the small claims court, at a cost just over £200.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.4K Spending & Discounts
- 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 172.8K Life & Family
- 247.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards