has this company acted illegally

new_home_owner_3

basically they have stole from this person,the way these esate agents have acted is no better than a door to door salesperson, that would distract a oap and steal there life savings.

scumbags.

terryw

new_home_owner wrote: »

basically they have stole from this person,the way these esate agents have acted is no better than a door to door salesperson, that would distract a oap and steal there life savings.

scumbags.

Very possibly you are right. But we don't know at the moment.

It is possible that the price received was a genuine price for a quick sale with no chain etc etc. The reason for the higher price may be connected with mortgage fraud and over-valuation, or even a tax fraud connected with income tax or capital gains tax.

At this stage we really don't know, but I am inclined to agree with you.

susanne2010

terryw wrote: »

OP,

You should have signed the Transfer form to the purchaser. Where did you sign this....was it at the solicitor's office or through the post? Would you have checked it and noticed the price and the name of the purchaser? Or perhaps, did you sign a blank Transfer form?

i signed at the solicitors andthe documents i signed had the company name on then, but to be honest i cant remember how many times i signed, this being the first property i have sold, i dont know how many times im required to sign,but i did have three appointments

susanne2010

ILW wrote: »

Is the EA a small independent ot part of a national chain?

large chain but the manager owns this franchice

susanne2010

Enfieldian wrote: »

Not sure if this has been asked before.

Were you living in the property up to completion? If not, was any access granted for work?

no it was an empty property ,i did all the veiwings and company boss viewed, then next viewed with his surveyor,then with his valuer which i did think why because it was suposed to be a cash sale then the next time his other three colleuges and a builder they did keep telling me how much they liked the house, the only time the keys were not in my possesion was two weeks before the sale for two days the e/agents had them then,plus there wasnt any work needing doing ,i had just had a brand new bathroom installed,full b/new central heating (worcester bosch boiler) decorated throughout and brand new carpets throughout,when you have a handicapped child to look after for thirty years you dont get much time to upgrade and renew things,plus the extention we had done maing this a four bed property, they must have seen me coming with my blind glasses on

susanne2010

silvercar wrote: »

Susanne, the recent findings aside, were you happy to accept approx 70k, given that it had been on the market for ages and there was no other offers? Did you feel that the estate agent was actively marketing the property? Have other similar properties sold for prices that suggest the approx 70k you got was reasonable in the current climate?

Whatever was going on behind the scenes (and it looks like some back pocketing and some mortgage fraud) without this it may be that you wouldn't have sold.

Another avenue for you to try is the lender named on the deeds. They may be interested to know that you sold for X not Y.

well i wasnt really happy to accept £70 but as it had been on the market a while, it did at first get quite a good few viewings, the e/agents in the end just kept saying it could be still there in another years time so i gave in and accepted it, but actually as i was well out of my contract i did tell them i might try renting it out myself, but it was the thought of dealing with any problem tennents and then just about over a week they rang and said this property buyer was interested, and the rest you know

susanne2010

silvercar wrote: »

Susanne, the recent findings aside, were you happy to accept approx 70k, given that it had been on the market for ages and there was no other offers? Did you feel that the estate agent was actively marketing the property? Have other similar properties sold for prices that suggest the approx 70k you got was reasonable in the current climate?

Whatever was going on behind the scenes (and it looks like some back pocketing and some mortgage fraud) without this it may be that you wouldn't have sold.

Another avenue for you to try is the lender named on the deeds. They may be interested to know that you sold for X not Y.

oh ,and i will also make sure the lender nows exactly how much i recieved, i just hope the person named on the l/registry documents isnt innocent in all this because if he is hes going to feel just the same as me,and he will still have it all to pay back to the bank,also if its really only worth the £70 i got then he would be in negative equity as well.

Homersimpson

Not sure I can offer any help but as I see it the form the land registry have states that you recieved 109k for the house not 71k, this surely can't be correct as this could have serious tax implications for some people.

Is it worth speaking to the Law Society (I think they call themselves the office for the supervision of solicitors these days)? See what they say and then speak to another solicitor.

If the official forms say that you recieved 109k then the solicitor either needs to pay you the difference or arrange to have the forms revised to show the two transactions.

Definatly more to this than meets the eye, keep plugging on with it and please do keep us updated with how you get on.

susanne2010

millym wrote: »

I know nothing about this stuff, but I reckon the OP should phone the solicitor back, asking about this back-to-back selling, and then pretend to be fobbed off - "sorry for bothering you, I misunderstood, blah blah". If the solicitor is involved they will probably have already alerted the other parties. I quick phonecall could give them all a false sense of security.

Someone has acted dishonestly, no question, and I hope they get what's coming to them, although going by that newspaper article, it may be very difficult to even get it investigated. Good to see Land Registry are taking it seriously! Good luck Op!

thanks but after the things i said to him ,i dont think he would belive i would forget or forgive

Jowo_2

Homersimpson wrote: »

Not sure I can offer any help but as I see it the form the land registry have states that you recieved 109k for the house not 71k, this surely can't be correct as this could have serious tax implications for some people.

As far as I know the land registry records will show the sale price but this doesn't necessarily mean the seller received it (for example, there could be joint sellers who then share different proportions of the equity, plus the legal/EA fees don't show up).

The transfer of the balance into the OPs bank account should be sufficient proof of funds received, plus I assume she has a written offer of the lower sale price, emails that discuss this, etc.