Property Misdescription - Estate Agent Refusing Liability

gezoneill

Hi all,

I recently had an offer accepted on a property and as the house was a reposession, the estate agent advised that I only had 21 days to complete and I should immediately contact the bank to arrange my mortgage, pay for a survey and advise my solicitor.

Upon receiving and inspecting the documents my solicitor immediately noticed that the garage not part of the properties deeds and was owned by another party. It clearly stated that the property included a garage in both writing and photos in the estate agent and right move.

Due to the fact that the garage was a large part of the property and had a door into the kitchen of the house my solicitor advised me to withdraw the offer unless the vendor rectified the problem with the deeds or they agreed to a substantial discount on the property.

As neither option was accepted I withdrew my offer having already spent the best part of £1000 and as a first time buyer thats almost 10% of my deposit down the drain!

I have been advised by Trading Standards that this falls foul of the Property Misdescriptions Act but after sending numerous letters to my estate agents to claim back the costs they refuse to accept liability stating that it is the vendor's problem as they provided the details.

This was a problem immediately identified by my solicitor so I think that if the estate agent had made adequate checks to the information in the HIPS pack then they would also have identified the problem.

Can anyone advise whether I have a case.
Do I stand a chance of claiming back my costs through the small claims court as Im not sure what else to do.

scooter_chick

Didn't YOU check the HIPs before you put your offer in?

Cannon_Fodder

Was the title/deed etc in the HIP ?

Did you read the HIP before making the offer?

If the information was there, but you chose not to look before offering, I doubt you will succeed.

The HIP is there for a reason...

Photos often include electricity pylons, edges of neighbouring houses, houses in the background, etc - you cannot assume they will all belong to you...

If the HIP was withheld, or not ready, or did not contain all the information, the you could check if the EA are affiliated to NAEA or similar, and see what procedure for complaints might be worth pursuing.

princessamy86

If the house is a repossession, I would be VERY surprised if the vendor (ie lender or asset management company) had signed off the details. As the agents, we are supposed to verify repossession details by exercising due diligence in checking the information they contain. I'm actually not sure how you escalate this, but I'm sure Trading Standards will be able to advise.

gezoneill

As I posted, I actually received a response from Trading Standards and they actually agreed that they are probably liable they do not seem to have shown "due dilligence" when checking the vendors documentation as Princessamy stated. They cant just state that there is a clause stating that they are not liable for the information provided by the vendor. They also stated that I should now contact the Ombudsman for Estate Agents with my complaint and hopefully they should make a decision.

Princessamy, from your experience as an estate agent does this sort of thing happen often? Are buyers ever successful in claiming back costs? Thanks in advance.

Cheers everyone

gezoneill

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

Was the title/deed etc in the HIP ?

Did you read the HIP before making the offer?

If the information was there, but you chose not to look before offering, I doubt you will succeed.

The HIP is there for a reason...

Photos often include electricity pylons, edges of neighbouring houses, houses in the background, etc - you cannot assume they will all belong to you...

If the HIP was withheld, or not ready, or did not contain all the information, the you could check if the EA are affiliated to NAEA or similar, and see what procedure for complaints might be worth pursuing.

Just to confirm, the details of the garage was in writing and in a picture on the marketing material.

I did not receive a HIPS pack before or after I put in the offer, it was sent directly to my solicitor.

princessamy86

I've never had it happen, and as far as I know it's not common. The paperwork we get for repossessions is very explicit in stating that we will be responsible for the production of sales particulars and that we MUST check all details, but I don't know where you'll stand if you don't have the evidence that says that it is the agent's responsibility to check. Aren't Trading Standards the ones with the powers of prosecution? Do contact the Ombudsman (it's called The Property Ombudsman) and see what they say, because I'm really not sure how you should escalate it.

VIGILANT22

I thought with all repo's disclaimers were added?

princessamy86

VIGILANT22 wrote: »

I thought with all repo's disclaimers were added?

Not necessarily on the brochures, a lot of the ones we deal with stipulate that we aren't allowed to market them as repossessions (or tell anyone that they are), which is bizarre really as if you have eyes in your head it's obvious.

googler

gezoneill wrote: »

Just to confirm, the details of the garage was in writing and in a picture on the marketing material.

I did not receive a HIPS pack before or after I put in the offer, it was sent directly to my solicitor.

So your solicitor had the HIP, which shows that the garage isn't included, before you and/or he put the offer in?

Trading Standards are the ones with the power to prosecute the agent under PMA if they feel there's a case; however, if successful, that empowers them to fine the agent, but the fine goes into public coffers, not to you.

If you were to pursue in the small claims court after TS had successfully prosecuted the agent, I'd reckon you'd be guaranteed to succeed.

Oh, and the NAEA or Property Ombudsman will only be of help to you if the agent concerned is a member of one or both organisations..... otherwise not.

LisaLou1982

As some others have said - the EA has to show that they have exercised due dilligence when producing the details.

However, you said in your post that there is a door leading from the garage to the kitchen?? It would be wholley reasonable to assume that the garage belonged to the property which is being sold if this is the case and i dont think you can expect the EA to assume otherwise as when they first marketed the property the HIP would not have been back for them to check against on the title plan.