Could I sue for being mis-sold

GDB2222

mandbaby wrote: »

USM - ok, you make a perfectly valid point. But in my defence, I'd just found out my fiance and partner of 9 years had had an affair months before we were getting married, was having to move out and buy my own house, and my head was all over the place. I was on anti-depressants AND the point I am sort of making is that surely you PAY your solicitors to point out the pitfalls? Well, why would this solicitor have ever done that when they were acting in the developers interests? I had no alternative but to use their solicitors - they wouldn't allow me to use my own.

I don't think that you were mis-sold by the developers, but it is possible the solicitors were negligent. You would really need to take all the correspondence along to a litigation solicitor.

To win the case, you have two hurdles to overcome. First, was the solicitor negligent? Second, if he had explained it all to you, would you perhaps have gone ahead anyway? I don't think there was any chance of renegotiating the terms of the contract, but of course there are lots of other properties around.

moneybunny123

No, I don't really believe the developers are completely to blame. My grievance is DEFINITELY with the solicitors - BUT, they were acting on behalf of the developers.

I also think the sales representative should carry the can a little. He was employed by the developers and made it all sound so hunky-dory - practically a no-brainer. A great new house, for only 75% of the cost provided you give back the first 25% when you sell. Who wouldn't go for that?! An interest free loan, in effect?

CLAPTON

reading this make me wonder if this is a wind up from those guys that queried whether sian knew the offside rule

Mallotum_X

mandbaby wrote: »

I also think the sales representative should carry the can a little. He was employed by the developers and made it all sound so hunky-dory - practically a no-brainer. A great new house, for only 75% of the cost provided you give back the first 25% when you sell. Who wouldn't go for that?! An interest free loan, in effect?

A sales rep made what he was selling sound good... who would imagine such a thing.

moneybunny123

Thanks for that Clapton. I'm sorry, but in my nice, caring, (niave if you like) world, I just assumed that when you PAY someone for a service, the people providing that service are obliged to point out the pros AND the cons. You hear all the time of people sueing x and y because they weren't told of this, that or the other.

What a pity that we live in the nasty, corrupt and synical world that we do. Makes you wonder why it's worth getting up in the morning if everyone is gonna try their hardest to stab you in the back.

USM

Out of interest, did they ever write down that you MUST use their solicitor or was it just something they stressed in conversation?

evoke

OP: You signed stuff that you didn't understand?

moneybunny123

Who DOES understand stuff sent from their solicitor?! It's all written in prose from centuries ago. I'd thought that's WHY YOU PAY FOR A SOLICITOR - to break it down and put it in laymen's terms. I'm obviously just naive in thinking that paying for a service gets you that service. Obviously, I need to have a degree in law before I sign anything in the future.

moneybunny123

USM wrote: »

Out of interest, did they ever write down that you MUST use their solicitor or was it just something they stressed in conversation?

Can't remember if I'm honest. If it IS written somewhere, it's most likely been lost in two house moves since.

Looks like I'm currently facing huge losses - and THAT's if I'm lucky to find a buyer that the developers approve of. I might as well let it get reposessed at this rate

Richard_Webster

Yes you do pay the solicitors to point out the pitfalls and whether they were "recommended" by the developer or not they still had a duty to you.

However I think we need to know what is the essential thing they didn't tell you that makes a difference to your present position. I don't think that anyone would have contemplated the rather unusual part payment sale that is being suggested - and anyway why can't you pay the 25% to the developer out of the 65% that you get upfront?

Is the developer not prepared to agree the £139K figure? If not, what will they agree?

It is one thing for them to have been negligent - another to prove that your loss flows from their negligence, rather than from your choice to let the property and thereby reduce its marketability whilst let..