Did Agent misrepresent the property?

Vetyver

pinkshoes wrote: »

Properties in the UK aren't sold by how many meters squares they are, so surely your offer was based on your OPINION of the CONDITION of the property, compared to other similar properties in the area?

The number of square meters is just a number - it shouldn't change how much you like it.

Only a number has changed, not the physical size of the flat.

I wouldn't bother buying anywhere unless it had 2 bedrooms!

You're right, the condition of the property was of course a major factor in my final offer. But doesn't everyone also factor in space when comparing properties? There's another one-bed flat near this one that was renovated to an eyewateringly high spec, at the same asking price. And yet that one's still on the market, probably because it's a mere 370 sq ft. Condition-wise, that one trumps this, and it's arguably even better situated for transport. The only factor I can think of is the size?

This is getting a bit OT though. You're right, it hasn't changed how I like it. But I wonder about whether it has affected the value of the place. One of the things the EA had said was "it's unusually large, you're getting a lot of bang for your buck". Yet they had said that whilst under the impression that the place was 10+ sq m larger than it is. They obviously won't admit if they overvalued it. But wouldn't that affect resale?

Gra76

Vetyver wrote: »

But doesn't everyone also factor in space when comparing properties?

Of course space is a factor when looking for properties. I get a rough idea in my head of the size from the measurements and then go look for myself.

I gauge the size by eye to work out if it's big enough.

However, 128 square ft is only a shade more than 11ft x 11ft. Hardly worth worrying about. That's smaller than the office I'm currently sitting in (a piddley 9ft x 10ft).

If the difference had been significantly more I'd have been saying something, but ultimately if you went and looked at it, and it was big enough for you when you looked at it, then I don't see that the sizes listed by the EA are an issue.

Moonraker71

Does anyone know exactly how they measure square footage? Just asking because my flat has just gone on the market and I'm concerned that the square footage they've put on my listing is wrong (an overestimate) after reading this. Eg, do they just multiply the width x depth of all rooms and add together? Or do they do the whole surface area of the property ignoring things like internal walls? If it's the former then mine is definitely less than what they've stated. Also, they've included my balcony in the calculations - would outside space like this normally be included? (Also - this doesn't apply to me - but I assume if you have sloping ceilings for example, a certain amount of floor space is 'unusable' - I wonder if this is normally included too?)

I agree most people not overly concerned by this but I find myself more and more looking at the square footage figure of properties, in order to compare with the place I'm in now. Quick and easy comparison of overall space, if calculations are correct.

Vetyver

Moonraker71 wrote: »

Does anyone know exactly how they measure square footage? Just asking because my flat has just gone on the market and I'm concerned that the square footage they've put on my listing is wrong (an overestimate) after reading this. Eg, do they just multiply the width x depth of all rooms and add together? Or do they do the whole surface area of the property ignoring things like internal walls? If it's the former then mine is definitely less than what they've stated. Also, they've included my balcony in the calculations - would outside space like this normally be included? (Also - this doesn't apply to me - but I assume if you have sloping ceilings for example, a certain amount of floor space is 'unusable' - I wonder if this is normally included too?)

I agree most people not overly concerned by this but I find myself more and more looking at the square footage figure of properties, in order to compare with the place I'm in now. Quick and easy comparison of overall space, if calculations are correct.

From my very limited experience, it seems that EAs tend to advertise internal areas only, including 'unusable' space with limited headroom. Surveyors include external (so balcony etc.) in their report. Not sure the exact method for calculation though, so hopefully someone else can help with that?

road68

I've been posting about similar concerns in the thread 'inaccurate floorplans?'. For what its worth the surveyor who came up with 102 square metres for my purchase (vs. the EA floorplan of 112 and the EPC of 108) said his wasn't very accurate and he may have missed out the stairs etc. That's not to say I totally trust the EA either but certainly the truth is likely to be in the middle somewhere which I can get comfortable with!

kmmr

128sqm may not be much in a big house, but when it is about 20% of the total area then it matters! And of course total space matters, not the finish. You can always increase the specifications and finish of a flat, but you can't add floor space.

It's also hard to estimate space when there are corridors, and random landings that use up lots of space. I always look at flats to see if I can remove corridors as it makes the place feel much bigger.

Vetyrs, I think you just need to re-evaluate the purchase now you know it is smaller. Is it still a good price? Are you still happy to live there and will it last you the time you want, which is presumably a few years until you will want to get somewhere bigger? Don't feel bound by your previous offer, try to be logical and ask yourself if you were influenced by the floor plan, and if so, then re-assess it and decide on the right price.

neverdespairgirl

phill99 wrote: »

How can you renegotiate? The vendors are actually selling the property, not the EA. the zEA is just an agent.

If I was the vendor and you wanted me to drop the price because of an EAs error, I would be telling you where to get off.

Additionally, the value isn't based on a square footage. It's based on a one bedroom flat of a certain standard in a certain location with certain amenities.

I certainly don't agree that value isn't based on square footage. In the area I live, it's crucial.

There is a massive difference, in my mind, between the two figures quoted by the OP. And a significant difference in value.

WOuld you really pay the same for a one bed flat in building A, third floor, with a living room that was 15 x 15, and the one next door, identical, but with a 10 x 10 foot living room instead?

neverdespairgirl

olly300 wrote: »

I think this was one of the people before who may have come back under a different username who was moaning about finding flats by measured size.

Lots of us explained that housing in England is not brought using this.

It is in, say, central London. The sq footage of a place is immediately and crucially relevant.

For example, the cheapest one bed flat for sale in EC1 says, in the very first line of the description on primelocation:

A conveniently located 1 bedroom apartment offering (468 Sq ft/ 43.5 Sq m approx) of accommodation within striking distance of Old Street tube.

They certainly don't all state the sq footage up front like this, but when we were looking for places a couple of years ago, they almost all had it somewhere obvious, such as on the floorplan.

robatwork

On the continent, flat buying is very much linked to the square meterage. Every flat is listed with its size first, as there is a direct correlation between that and the price - as said above especially in a city centre. Obviously the condition is also taken into account.

It seems many flats on the market here aren't listed with size, which is crazy to me. Every property should have its floor space and floorplan listed.