Buying House - Partner is an estate agent

Riq

Morning!

So we've had our offer accepted, mortgage signed and solicitors sorted.

My girlfriend walks into work this morning and is informed she has to disclose to the estate agent of the house we are buying that she is herself an estate agent. The companies are not linked.

So do I just ring up the estate agent and let him know or do I have to do something abit more legal like a proper letter etc?

Gwhiz

I am sure someone else will give you words of wisdom on this...but I cannot for the life of me see why you have to do this.

Anyway... assuming it's true I would just call up the EA you are buying from and tell them.

Gwhiz

Rose11 wrote: »

Hello Rig,
Please disclose everything to real estate agent. Because at time of documentation everything should be clear. Real estate agent know everything, But ensure that agent should be registered.

But why should the EA have to know what line of business you are in? Even if it is estate agency.

Doozergirl

Isn't it great when even the estate agent manager doesn't even understand their own legislation?!

In plan English:
http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/legal-powers/legal/estate-agents-act/declaring-interest
The Estate Agent Act 1979, Paragraph 21 in not so plain English:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/38

It relates to personal interest. If her company and the selling agent aren't linked then she has no personal interest in the purchase. No need to say anything.

CloudCuckooLand

With the myriad of takeovers/mergers/umbrella holding companies etc, it may appear on the surface that the EAs are not linked, but they may in fact be linked somewhere "under the covers"...

Better to declare for no reason - it doesn't affect anything - than later be picked up for not doing so, because of some obscure link that no-one spotted ?

Apart from the legal definition, I would think it to be a professional courtesy, anyway. And avoids confusion, should the property have changed agents, perhaps.

googler

Section 21 of the act;

"Subsections (1) and (2) above apply where an estate agent is negotiating on his own behalf as well as where he is negotiating in the course of estate agency work."

Doesn't that, in conjunction with sections 1 and 2 imply that the OP's girlfriend should be declaring her profession even if there's no link between the agencies....?

DVardysShadow

googler wrote: »

Section 21 of the act;

"Subsections (1) and (2) above apply where an estate agent is negotiating on his own behalf as well as where he is negotiating in the course of estate agency work."

Doesn't that, in conjunction with sections 1 and 2 imply that the OP's girlfriend should be declaring her profession even if there's no link between the agencies....?

From TFA

This Act applies, subject to subsections (2) to (4) below to things done by any person in the course of a business (including a business in which he is employed) pursuant to instructions received from another person (in this section referred to as “the client”) who wishes to dispose of or acquire an interest in land—

The whole thing is a difficult read, and I have only picked at it. But this is not in the course of a business - it is in a personal capacity and it is not [we assume] purchasing a property through the employing estate agent.

googler

DVardysShadow wrote: »

...this is not in the course of a business - it is in a personal capacity and it is not [we assume] purchasing a property through the employing estate agent.

Isn't the 'act applies to ...' bit that you quoted contradicted by the phrase that I quoted, as follows -

"...apply where an estate agent is negotiating on his own behalf as well as where he is negotiating in the course of estate agency work"

???

DVardysShadow

googler wrote: »

Isn't the 'act applies to ...' bit that you quoted contradicted by the phrase that I quoted, as follows -

"...apply where an estate agent is negotiating on his own behalf as well as where he is negotiating in the course of estate agency work"

???

I don't think that there is any real contradiction when you take into account the section 1 text and when you take into account [and this, I think, is the killer] that there has to be a client. In the case that someone who works as an estate agent makes an offer on a property marketed by an unrelated Estate Agency business, the seller is client of neither the purchasing estate agent nor of that agent's employing business.

In the section 21 text you quote, the 'as well as' refers to the 2 actions being carried out on the one transaction, not to the person carrying out one action on some transactions and the other on some different transactions.

If you understand why section 21 is law, it should be clearer. If our Agent, Mr A is negotiator for the sale of a clients property and Mr A wants to buy it, in times gone by, Mr A would fob off all other potential buyers and make his own offer on behalf of the fictional Mr F. He would then secure the property for himself at a knockdown price. So the law prevents Mr A from negotiating with himself in the dual roles as negotiator on behalf of the seller and as buyer.

Once you understand why this is bad, you can see that it just does not apply in the OP's case.

diable

An Estate Agent buying a House, let the stampede begin the housing market must be on the up ;o)))

googler

DVardysShadow wrote: »

In the section 21 text you quote, the 'as well as' refers to the 2 actions being carried out on the one transaction, not to the person carrying out one action on some transactions and the other on some different transactions.

The light bulb has clicked on now. I read it as two separates;

"the act applies to an agent negotiating on their on behalf (but not in the course of their work" as well as

"the act applies to the agent in the course of their work"

whereas the authors meant the situation where the two occur simultaneously, as you say.