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?

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!
«13

Comments

  • anselld
    anselld Posts: 8,262
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    No chance. The agent will say they acted in good faith on information given by the seller.
  • Surrey_EA
    Surrey_EA Posts: 2,042
    First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    ajm410 wrote: »
    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?

    In a word, no.
  • ajm410
    ajm410 Posts: 136 Forumite
    Thought not; thanks!
  • dares_uk
    dares_uk Posts: 65 Forumite
    you could sue them for misrepresentation, they have been negligent in checking the details of what they are selling.
  • glentoran99
    glentoran99 Posts: 5,821
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post Debt-free and Proud!
    Forumite
    dares_uk wrote: »
    you could sue them for misrepresentation, they have been negligent in checking the details of what they are selling.



    nonsense, Quite simply nonsense, That's why you pay solictors its not an estate agents job to check they go on the sellers instructions
  • dares_uk
    dares_uk Posts: 65 Forumite
    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.
  • glentoran99
    glentoran99 Posts: 5,821
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post Debt-free and Proud!
    Forumite
    dares_uk wrote: »
    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 so
  • dares_uk
    dares_uk Posts: 65 Forumite
    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.
  • Surrey_EA
    Surrey_EA Posts: 2,042
    First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    dares_uk wrote: »
    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.
    I don't disagree, but given the quality of many of the estate agents I meet I wouldn't feel hugely confident they would be able to interpret the information correctly!
    dares_uk wrote: »
    Alternatively sue the seller, get / keep a copy of the SPIF form, that forms part of the legal contract.
    At the stage this sale had reached no contract had been entered in to.
  • dares_uk
    dares_uk Posts: 65 Forumite
    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.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

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