Lanmark case on Estate Agents & Misleading Omissions

david29dpo

Did the sellers also say nothing?

googler

david29dpo wrote: »

Did the sellers also say nothing?

Why should they be obliged to?

It's not something within their property, not part of their property, it's something close by - and as I said, where do you draw the line about something close by?

tbs624

It may, on the face of it, seem unreasonable that the owner can keep schtum about why people have withdrawn from the purchase and yet the EA is hauled to court but this particular case was brought under Statute applying specifically to the actions (or omissions) of Agents

From the source of the report:

"it was brought under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 – one of the two pieces of legislation replacing the Property Misdescription Act, which is being ditched.

Under guidance from the Office of Fair Trading, agents must not leave out important information. The guidance was issued in light of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations and also the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008."

The agent was aware that a number of other potential buyers had withdrawn because of the mineshaft issue coming up on their searches.

Ultimately I don't see this scenario as being much different from EAs using their property marketing blurb to highlight the fact that x property "is only likely to be of interest to cash buyers" ie you will struggle to get a mortgage/reasonably priced buildings insurance on this property because it has structural issues etc.

The presence of the mineshaft *is* going to affact mortgageability and buildings insurance cover so once aware that this issue is (a) there and (b) going to affect that mortgageability surely it is right that the EA should be obliged to disclose the relevant info?

Apart form the costs implication for all concerned, it's a gross waste of everyone's time - the average buyer is unlikely to be able to proceed.

Fire_Fox

googler wrote: »

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?

Things like mineshafts, underpinning for subsidence and pricey planned major works (leasehold) are hidden from view, a nightclub and the sea are there for any prospective buyer to see for themselves. Neighbours are close by not within the property, but you have long since been expected to disclose disputes there. It is extremely difficult to write legislation that covers every eventuality. Buyers, sellers, estate agents and magistrates are all capable of using their common sense and experience when deciding what should be disclosed.