Could I sue for being mis-sold

moneybunny123

We posted at the same time - I see now you have answered it, and I will read with interest...

CloudCuckooLand

mandbaby wrote: »

...and their advice should've been to avoid the deal at all costs...

Some people like Shared Ownership - or at least appreciate the positves over the negatives;

sturgeon wrote: »

Sorry but unsure how this proves Shared Ownership is a con.

SO helped me buy it but had no implications on the price.

I won't blame SO as 'conning me', and will appreciate I don't own 100% of the property and be thankful the first time buyers association is footing a % of the drop in value.

There is no certainty that a solicitor will make such a recommendation. They might agree with the above view. Especially if, in your "weakened mind", you gave the impression that this was the only solution to all your troubles...

I find it remarkable how clued up people can quickly become when they want to complain about something, yet they rarely bother to get clued up before signing the piece of paper in respect of tens of thousands of pounds of their own money...

Act in haste, repent at leisure.

Flyboy152

mandbaby wrote: »

No offence taken.

But if we weren't put here to procreate, what do you believe we were put on earth to do?

That is a question that philosophers have been tying answer since time immemorial and still haven't succeeded in finding one.

Do you suggest I go out shooting dead any free animal I see mating because they're causing the worlds problems? No. So, why shouldn't I be allowed my free choice of having a child just because YOU choose not to?

Don't be silly now.

pinkteapot

mandbaby wrote: »

They're having to wait for it now, aren't they? While I decide not to sell, the whole time they're waiting for their share.

No. At present they have a 25% share in a house; an asset.

You are proposing that instead of having a 25% share in the house, they have an IOU from a letting agent saying "I'll pay you £XX in 5 years". As has already been pointed out, the letting agent could go bust in that time. Of course the developer won't agree.

Please put yourself in their shoes; if you weren't going to get your proceeds from the sale for five years, would you go for it?

I do really feel for you; I lost £22k on the first property I owned (I would have been £22k better off if I'd stayed in rented rather than buying it). But a lot of people are in the same situation at the moment. The property market goes up and down. You can keep the house till the price rises again so you won't lose the money, or you can sell and take the loss. It's harsh but that's the situation.

As others have said, forget this letting agent and get a sale on normal terms (i.e. cash on completion, not five years later). If you have to kick the tenants out then so be it; they are tenants and know that the landlord selling the property is always a risk when renting. What sort of contract/notice period are they on?

moneybunny123

Flyboy152 wrote: »

If they agree to your and the estate agent's proposal, they are either fixing their return now, which means that if the property increases in value they will lose out. If the return is not fixed they risk losing money of the markets fall.

You entered into an equitable agreement with the developers five years ago, which suited you very well at the time. But now, when it no longer suits you, you want to change the terms of that agreement. Well, I am sorry but your partners in this venture don't want to change them, which they quite rightly entitled to. Why should they take more risk than you?

They WOULD be fixing in now - hence if prices fall, they're quids in on what they would be if they took their money now. It's all a risk. Sell now, sell later, don't sell. It's all a risk, but surely they're not taking more risk than me? My risk is three times greater than theirs. I own 75% to their 25%. I'd say the risk is entirely mine, to be honest. This is a drop in the ocean to them - but it's my life.

Flyboy152

mandbaby wrote: »

I wasn't told that I'd have to seek their permission before I sold though. Yes, I was told I'd have to have three valuations, but an ASKING price (i.e. valuation) is very different than the SELLING price (which wasn't mentioned to me, and, I'm not sure if that is even in the contract).

I was told I HAD to use their solicitor AND mortgage advisor, both of which were paid for a service by ME, and neither of them pointed out pitfalls. As I must have already said two or three times, excuse my naivety but I assumed a solicitor was paid to ADVISE and their advice should've been to avoid the deal at all costs. And I would have.

When it was explained to you that the developers would want their share on the sale of the property, what did you think they should accept? They are not going to accept any valuation or price, are they?

moneybunny123

pinkteapot wrote: »

As others have said, forget this letting agent and get a sale on normal terms (i.e. cash on completion, not five years later). If you have to kick the tenants out then so be it; they are tenants and know that the landlord selling the property is always a risk when renting. What sort of contract/notice period are they on?

Two months notice. If I'm gonna do it (give them notice), I'm gonna do it within the next week. That way, they'll be out before the Easter school hols giving me opportunity to go round and tart the place up (in my 7 month pregnant state) before putting it on the market

ILW

Why not market the place, see if you get an offer and then see if the developer will accept it?

moneybunny123

Flyboy152 wrote: »

When it was explained to you that the developers would want their share on the sale of the property, what did you think they should accept? They are not going to accept any valuation or price, are they?

I'd thought that it would just be a case of them accepting a REASONABLE offer. But who's to say I will get one? I've already had a ridiculous offer of £120k which they (rightly) rejected, but who is to say that I will get an offer any higher?! They just sit tight on their 25%, with NO risk, while I have to pay all the costs. Where's fair in that?

moneybunny123

ILW wrote: »

Why not market the place, see if you get an offer and then see if the developer will accept it?

Cos if I don't get an offer I will have booted out perfectly good tenants who are currently paying the mortgage. Which, obviously, I'm worried about. To me, it seems like I currently have ALL the risk and the developers have none. Hardly seems fair.