Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • ajm410
    • By ajm410 7th Dec 17, 2:24 PM
    • 136Posts
    • 32Thanks
    ajm410
    Misrepresented house sale has fallen through - can I claim for costs?
    • #1
    • 7th Dec 17, 2:24 PM
    Misrepresented house sale has fallen through - can I claim for costs? 7th Dec 17 at 2:24 PM
    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!
Page 1
    • anselld
    • By anselld 7th Dec 17, 2:39 PM
    • 5,418 Posts
    • 4,986 Thanks
    anselld
    • #2
    • 7th Dec 17, 2:39 PM
    • #2
    • 7th Dec 17, 2:39 PM
    No chance. The agent will say they acted in good faith on information given by the seller.
    • Surrey_EA
    • By Surrey_EA 7th Dec 17, 2:41 PM
    • 1,298 Posts
    • 1,551 Thanks
    Surrey_EA
    • #3
    • 7th Dec 17, 2:41 PM
    • #3
    • 7th Dec 17, 2:41 PM
    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?
    Originally posted by ajm410
    In a word, no.
    • ajm410
    • By ajm410 7th Dec 17, 2:42 PM
    • 136 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    ajm410
    • #4
    • 7th Dec 17, 2:42 PM
    • #4
    • 7th Dec 17, 2:42 PM
    Thought not; thanks!
    • dares_uk
    • By dares_uk 7th Dec 17, 3:03 PM
    • 59 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    dares_uk
    • #5
    • 7th Dec 17, 3:03 PM
    • #5
    • 7th Dec 17, 3:03 PM
    you could sue them for misrepresentation, they have been negligent in checking the details of what they are selling.
    • glentoran99
    • By glentoran99 7th Dec 17, 3:04 PM
    • 4,906 Posts
    • 3,910 Thanks
    glentoran99
    • #6
    • 7th Dec 17, 3:04 PM
    • #6
    • 7th Dec 17, 3:04 PM
    you could sue them for misrepresentation, they have been negligent in checking the details of what they are selling.
    Originally posted by dares_uk


    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
    • By dares_uk 7th Dec 17, 3:09 PM
    • 59 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    dares_uk
    • #7
    • 7th Dec 17, 3:09 PM
    • #7
    • 7th Dec 17, 3:09 PM
    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
    • By glentoran99 7th Dec 17, 3:10 PM
    • 4,906 Posts
    • 3,910 Thanks
    glentoran99
    • #8
    • 7th Dec 17, 3:10 PM
    • #8
    • 7th Dec 17, 3:10 PM
    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.
    Originally posted by dares_uk

    Estate agents don't look at the title though, Its not their job to do so
    • dares_uk
    • By dares_uk 7th Dec 17, 3:14 PM
    • 59 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    dares_uk
    • #9
    • 7th Dec 17, 3:14 PM
    • #9
    • 7th Dec 17, 3:14 PM
    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
    • By Surrey_EA 7th Dec 17, 3:20 PM
    • 1,298 Posts
    • 1,551 Thanks
    Surrey_EA
    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.
    Originally posted by dares_uk
    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!
    Alternatively sue the seller, get / keep a copy of the SPIF form, that forms part of the legal contract.
    Originally posted by dares_uk
    At the stage this sale had reached no contract had been entered in to.
    • dares_uk
    • By dares_uk 7th Dec 17, 3:49 PM
    • 59 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    dares_uk
    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.
    • Surrey_EA
    • By Surrey_EA 7th Dec 17, 3:55 PM
    • 1,298 Posts
    • 1,551 Thanks
    Surrey_EA


    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.
    Originally posted by dares_uk
    Obviously I don't know the details of your particular situation, however in the OPs case, and based on the information provided, I wouldn't waste my time or money, and put it down to experience.
    • ReadingTim
    • By ReadingTim 7th Dec 17, 5:20 PM
    • 2,215 Posts
    • 3,138 Thanks
    ReadingTim
    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.
    Originally posted by dares_uk
    And have you won your case, or just spend £200 to learn something you could have learnt here for nothing?
    • eddddy
    • By eddddy 7th Dec 17, 5:48 PM
    • 5,529 Posts
    • 5,220 Thanks
    eddddy
    you could sue them for misrepresentation, they have been negligent in checking the details of what they are selling.
    Originally posted by dares_uk
    The only way would be to sue the EA/Seller. I have/am going through the same process at the moment...
    Originally posted by dares_uk
    On what legal basis are you suing the EA/Seller?

    You can't sue them for misrepresentation, because you don't have a contract with either of them.

    after having a complaint to the TPO dismissed on the grounds its a consumer/solicitor issue,
    Originally posted by dares_uk
    So do you mean you're suing your solicitor?

    ...and was advised to continue my case through the small claims court, at a cost just over £200.
    Originally posted by dares_uk

    When you say "Advised", do you mean the TPO said...

    "I advise you to sue because you have a strong case and a good chance of winning"

    Or, did the TPO say:

    "I'm dismissing your case, so if you want to pursue it I'd advise you to go to the small claims court" (which kind of means "go away and bother somebody else instead of me")
    • AnotherJoe
    • By AnotherJoe 7th Dec 17, 7:02 PM
    • 7,671 Posts
    • 8,280 Thanks
    AnotherJoe
    I dont see why you cant sue the seller and have a good chance of winning, its them that misrepresented.
    • kinger101
    • By kinger101 7th Dec 17, 8:29 PM
    • 3,951 Posts
    • 5,412 Thanks
    kinger101
    You've not really explain the misrepresentation.

    I would have though it was pretty obvious that a "share of freehold" property is by definition is a leasehold property.
    • Mutton Geoff
    • By Mutton Geoff 7th Dec 17, 8:34 PM
    • 987 Posts
    • 1,026 Thanks
    Mutton Geoff
    You've not really explain the misrepresentation.

    I would have though it was pretty obvious that a "share of freehold" property is by definition is a leasehold property.
    Originally posted by kinger101
    Unfortunately not. There is a freeholder who collects rent from the leaseholders under the terms of the lease. A share of the freehold is not a lease.


    When buying a property, you must carry out due diligence. Much of this is carried out by professionals. Who charge a fee. Your professional advisors have advised you and saved you a much larger sum of money further down the line. Time to adjust your offer or move onto the next place.
    Compensations/Refunds from Banks & Institutions - £4,165 | Stooz Profits - £7,636 | Quidco - £3,963

    All with a big thank you to Martin and MSE.com from Mutton Geoff!
    • eddddy
    • By eddddy 7th Dec 17, 8:45 PM
    • 5,529 Posts
    • 5,220 Thanks
    eddddy
    There is a freeholder who collects rent from the leaseholders under the terms of the lease. A share of the freehold is not a lease.
    Originally posted by Mutton Geoff
    When people talk about a 'Share of Freehold' flat - they actually mean a leasehold flat (and the lease would say a ground rent is payable etc) - with the freehold jointly owned by all the leaseholders.
    • Mutton Geoff
    • By Mutton Geoff 7th Dec 17, 9:04 PM
    • 987 Posts
    • 1,026 Thanks
    Mutton Geoff
    When people talk about a 'Share of Freehold' flat - they actually mean a leasehold flat (and the lease would say a ground rent is payable etc) - with the freehold jointly owned by all the leaseholders.
    Originally posted by eddddy
    Correct, but as I said, a share of the freehold is not a leasehold. The freehold can be owned by a company, a person, a group of people, or the group of people who are the leaseholders. In the case you mention, the leaseholders may pay themselves (the shareholders of the freehold) rent etc, but kinger101 is wrong in his/her statement.
    Compensations/Refunds from Banks & Institutions - £4,165 | Stooz Profits - £7,636 | Quidco - £3,963

    All with a big thank you to Martin and MSE.com from Mutton Geoff!
    • davidmcn
    • By davidmcn 7th Dec 17, 9:21 PM
    • 6,249 Posts
    • 6,029 Thanks
    davidmcn
    Correct, but as I said, a share of the freehold is not a leasehold. The freehold can be owned by a company, a person, a group of people, or the group of people who are the leaseholders. In the case you mention, the leaseholders may pay themselves (the shareholders of the freehold) rent etc, but kinger101 is wrong in his/her statement.
    Originally posted by Mutton Geoff
    I think they're correct in that it implies what is being sold is a leasehold property plus some sort of share in the freehold.

    But having said that, it's not clear from the OP what any misrepresentation actually was, as it appears to be the duration of the lease which was the problem - so had they actually claimed it was a longer term remaining?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

194Posts Today

1,498Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I realised I forgot in my links earlier. 1. Help to Buy ISAs, how they work and best buys...? https://t.co/BSCNPeqiVF

  • RT @whatdawndid: Thanks to uncle @MartinSLewis I just received £200 back, just like that from the student loan company! Turns out that the?

  • RT @LaraLewington: Shocked and saddened by Cheggers news. Working with him on It?s A Knockout was my 1st job in telly when I was just 19. H?

  • Follow Martin