We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Lanmark case on Estate Agents & Misleading Omissions
tbs624
Posts: 10,816 Forumite
That title should of course read *Landmark" 
From a report in Estate Agents Today online - Monday 15th October 2012
"In a landmark case, Beresford Adams estate agents, part of Countrywide in Wales, have been found guilty of failing to disclose something about a property which could have put buyers off.
The case at Wrexham Magistrates Court, which was heard last month, is believed by the county’s trading standards officers to be a first and one which will set a precedent.
Wrexham Council Trading Standards brough the case against Beresford Adams following receipt of a complaint in 2011 about a house being offered by them in the Rhos area.
A potential buyer had had an offer accepted on the property but their searches and surveys revealed the presence of a mineshaft very close by.
Apparently Beresford Adams had been aware of the mineshaft's presence for some time, because their attention was drawn to it by other potential purchasers who had withdrawn from purchasing becuase of the mineshaft.
"However, the agents did nothing with this information and allowed the complainant to go ahead and incur the costs of searches and a survey..........
Wrexham magistrates imposed a fine of £3,500.
Beresford Adams were also ordered to pay the council costs of £5,000 and to pay the complainant compensation of £515, representing the cost of searches and surveys incurred which would never have been commissioned had the information about the mineshaft been disclosed. "
From a report in Estate Agents Today online - Monday 15th October 2012
"In a landmark case, Beresford Adams estate agents, part of Countrywide in Wales, have been found guilty of failing to disclose something about a property which could have put buyers off.
The case at Wrexham Magistrates Court, which was heard last month, is believed by the county’s trading standards officers to be a first and one which will set a precedent.
Wrexham Council Trading Standards brough the case against Beresford Adams following receipt of a complaint in 2011 about a house being offered by them in the Rhos area.
A potential buyer had had an offer accepted on the property but their searches and surveys revealed the presence of a mineshaft very close by.
Apparently Beresford Adams had been aware of the mineshaft's presence for some time, because their attention was drawn to it by other potential purchasers who had withdrawn from purchasing becuase of the mineshaft.
"However, the agents did nothing with this information and allowed the complainant to go ahead and incur the costs of searches and a survey..........
Wrexham magistrates imposed a fine of £3,500.
Beresford Adams were also ordered to pay the council costs of £5,000 and to pay the complainant compensation of £515, representing the cost of searches and surveys incurred which would never have been commissioned had the information about the mineshaft been disclosed. "
0
Comments
-
Wrexham magistrates imposed a fine of £3,500... and to pay the complainant compensation of £515
I doubt they'll be too upset if they only had to pay £4k plus costs. The compensation seems particularly low, and presumably doesn't include conveyancing and mortgage costs.
Still, I'm glad the precident has been set, and will hopefully lead to fewer pointless surveys being carried out.Note: Unless otherwise stated, my property related posts refer to England & Wales. Please make sure you state if you are discussing Scotland or elsewhere as laws differ.0 -
About time.0
-
david29dpo wrote: »About time.
Would you say the same if you were the seller of the property in question (for his/hers is the only voice not represented in this case)?0 -
Would you say the same if you were the seller of the property in question (for his/hers is the only voice not represented in this case)?
yes, its in the vendors best interests as well, no doubt the vendor wasted time sorting out a solicitor and finding a new house on this second offer, time and money that would have been avoided.0 -
Surely if any agent acting for that seller is now obliged to disclose not only the presence of the shaft, but also the fact that this case occured, the vendor is going to be left with an almost unsellable house...?0
-
Surely if any agent acting for that seller is now obliged to disclose not only the presence of the shaft, but also the fact that this case occured, the vendor is going to be left with an almost unsellable house...?
This case hasnt changed his house at all (or what people will find out about it anyway), its just people are going to find out about it earlier...
His house is just as saleable as it was before this case, but people wont waste time and money.
He'll now have to price his house to reflect its true condition.
About time too!0 -
martinsurrey wrote: »This case hasnt changed his house at all (or what people will find out about it anyway), its just people are going to find out about it earlier...
His house is just as saleable as it was before this case, but people wont waste time and money.
He'll now have to price his house to reflect its true condition.
About time too!
It's got nothing to do with the condition of the vendor's house, though, merely the presence of something close by.
As some have suggested in the thread linked to above, if disclosure has to cover not only the house itself but anything which might put a potential buyer off the property, where does disclosure of 'anything' in the surrounding features stop?
The sea's a quarter mile away, so the house might get flooded if hurricane sandy changes direction?
There's a night club three or four streets away which closes at 3am, so there might be noisy patrons exiting at this time?
The church has bell-ringing practice on Wednesday nights?0 -
As this is a magistrate decision, there is no precedent set I believe. That would only happen if it were appealed and taken to county court.0
-
It's got nothing to do with the condition of the vendor's house, though, merely the presence of something close by.
As some have suggested in the thread linked to above, if disclosure has to cover not only the house itself but anything which might put a potential buyer off the property, where does disclosure of 'anything' in the surrounding features stop?
The sea's a quarter mile away, so the house might get flooded if hurricane sandy changes direction?
There's a night club three or four streets away which closes at 3am, so there might be noisy patrons exiting at this time?
The church has bell-ringing practice on Wednesday nights?
the mine shaft was very close by, which does effect his house as mine shafts have, and do collapse and take foundations with them, they have, and do flood, taking foundations with them, and unlike the sea, cant be seen at a viewing/on a map without spending money on searches.
If someone hid a sea from you while you were viewing, then yes, it would be similar, same with the nightclub, you can find out about them for free and are all common knowledge.
This is about keeping important information, which you are aware of, secret, in full knowledge that it WILL be found at the buyers expense later down the road.0 -
martinsurrey wrote: »This is about keeping important information, which you are aware of, secret, in full knowledge that it WILL be found at the buyers expense later down the road.
The legislation isn't specific enough to refer to 'important information', though. Merely that anything which might cause the average, well-educated, informed person to reconsider their purchase should be disclosed; which is vague in the extreme....
You reckon that there won't be objections along the lines of 'the EA didn't say THAT was there', when 'that' was clearly apparent on a map of the area.....?
I agree with you, though, EAs shouldn't be under an obligation to declare things which are plainly in the public domain and on public record.....0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards