Buyer trespassing

ging84

the buyer has not caused a delay by not exchanging, the seller has by not maintaining the property

getmore4less

If I had an offer on an empty place I would be wanting to check it regularly especially if there was any suspicion the seller is not.

Wxternally would be enough most times but if the EA is willing to cooperate why not check inside as well.

What has caused the delay, typically there should be nothing to stop exchange in 8 weeks we are double that now.

Gwhiz

I'd like to know what the original agreement was between the OP and the EA.

lessonlearned

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

So, for all you know, she could have had another set of keys cut.

I did so myself on my "shoulda been" starter house when I got given keys. When the little ****** wouldn't continue with the !!!! I never mentioned I'd already had a spare set cut to my shoulda-been-home. I just threw those keys away when it became clear he wasn't proceeding (after I'd had another visit to see if I could get any clue as to what the problem was).

Having spare keys cut for a house you do not own is wrong, however "good" your intentions were. Slap on the wrist there Money.

A word to the wise - when leaving property empty for any length of time - especially in winter - water should be switched off. Burst pipes can result in disastrous flooding.

OP, as it is, although you are objecting to the purchaser's visits, they have done you a favour by finding the leak before there was any further damage. I would be grateful it had been found.

(I once had a slow leak from a washing machine which I hadn't noticed. By the time it was discovered it cost ££££'s to put right).

Re not exchanging - your purchaser's solicitor will no doubt have advised their client not to exchange contracts until they were reassured that the leak had been stopped and that any resulting damage had been deal with.

You cannot blame the purchaser for this. Whilst the frequency of visits may be excessive (although I would question the EA's story on that one) it was the EA who allowed access to your property.

Purchasers should always inspect a property one final time immediately prior to exchange of contracts to ensure that all is still well with the property. Most solicitors will strongly recommend this.

Hope all will be resolved quickly for you.

Odie_Schmodie

Well, it seems out of 12 offers this buyer offered you the highest price, and even in light of her offer the others did not "match" it, so I would say you likely got a very good price and a very keen buyer. I would try to keep the issue with the EA giving them the key separate. Are they FTBs? If so, they will be getting advice from all over (including on MSE) to not exchange before all the major problems are sorted and possibly people have been telling them they really should have had a building survey done etc. They haven't come back to you to knock off the price etc. and in fact have spent more money on this purchase- it just sounds like they have the jitters. Re: them visiting every week, it may have felt like that to an EA who sounds like not the busiest bee in the world (ie it may have felt like that if they are used to taking in people just once or twice) but the buyer may have visited that many times BECAUSE the property was empty and BECAUSE the EA was fine with them going in with the key. (IE they may have thought they are not inconveniencing anyone, which they weren't as far as they knew.) If you are a FTB it is really difficult to know what you should check out and you are not very good at looking at everything you need to look at (I keep thinking I should have measured other bits etc.etc.). Now, how can the problem be solved? It seems the buyer is scared about a "leak" (and again, if they don't know much about houses or surveys it is very easy for them to have been freaked out, and people, including the surveyor and solicitor, could be advising them to NOT exchange before any problems are resolved). Can you quickly and cheaply put their mind at rest and proceed? In other words, keep your eyes on the prize- this WAS your best buyer. (When a property goes back on the market most potential buyers in the area are aware that it had "sold" before and will scrutinize accordingly.) You may then wish to ask for a fee reduction from the EA, AFTER you've sorted things with the buyer. Good luck!

Bantex_2

hollytree1 wrote: »

The buyer was given the keys not attended during the visits. I have no issue with the surveyor being in the property but I do have issue knowing the buyer has been inside unattended, as the property is empty I think the agent has become lazy and not followed procedure.

Why is it a problem?

DaftyDuck

Bantex wrote: »

Why is it a problem?

Because the property would be completely uninsured for any damage (including fire) that occurred as a result - or possible result of the visit. Up to, and including total loss.

Because the owner would be personally liable for any injuries the viewer sustained during the visit... and uninsured for that. Broken back from falling downstairs? Maybe £7 million payout....

Yes, you could sue the agent. But there, no doubt, would lie several hurdles.

A professional (surveyor, for example) would have his own indemnity insurance.

Bantex_2

DaftyDuck wrote: »

Because the property would be completely uninsured for any damage (including fire) that occurred as a result - or possible result of the visit. Up to, and including total loss.

Because the owner would be personally liable for any injuries the viewer sustained during the visit... and uninsured for that. Broken back from falling downstairs? Maybe £7 million payout....

Yes, you could sue the agent. But there, no doubt, would lie several hurdles.

A professional (surveyor, for example) would have his own indemnity insurance.

It is unlikly the property is not insured.
Even if not the OP could only be sued if negligence was proved.

DRP

Bantex wrote: »

Why is it a problem?

I'd say the problem is

A) that the ea isn't notifying the owner of visits
and
that someone is entering her house unaccompanied

Both unacceptable, B especially so!

DaftyDuck

Bantex wrote: »

It is unlikly the property is not insured.
Even if not the OP could only be sued if negligence was proved.

Simply not true, even if the property is fully insured by the owner. If the viewer stumbles because of an uneven rug, a toy left out, a slippery patch from a leak, or electric shock from a leak... (which there was), then owner would be liable. And it could be extortionate.

If the viewer was invited into the home (i.e. did not break in, invited = being given keys) and caused a fire, most home insurance would not pay out. You could sue... if they had any money, could be found, could be proven to be them.... no, you'd have no chance unless they died in the fire... then their family would sue you instead.

The keys have been out of sight of the agent. Anyone (and it would have to be the lowest form of life, a real crook, a scumbag :eek: ) could have copied keys, and thus gain entry at any point... squatting, stripping the house of all valuables, whatever.