Wrong Estate Agent Advice

richards499

I have given wrong advice by our Estate Agent. we were advised to buy our lease to sell our house as it would not sell as a leasehold property.
this we did at over £6k. we had to try to recoup this outlay on selling price, the house failed to sell at the higher asking price. however other house on the same estate have since sold all of which where leasehold!
Have we got reasonable grounds to complain to Estate Agent ombudsman about our wrong and costly advice that we were given..

nidO

Probably not really as in most cases their advice is probably sound, people prefer freehold properties to leasehold because they're a lot less future hassle.
Your estate agent advised you of this and you chose to act on the advice, the fact that someone else subsequently happens to have sold their house when you haven't doesn't change the fact that their advice is broadly right. Maybe the buyers preferred the colour of the carpets in other houses over yours.

roonaldo

A freehold house is a much more attractive proposition over a leasehold one, particularly if the lease was becoming short. So buying the freehold is a probably a good idea. You never said how long the lease was left, if it were less than 60 years or so it would have been essential as wouldnt have been mortgagable.

I doubt they forced you to do it and you may still sell your house for what you want, be patient. You would have used a solicitor to purchase the freehold and received legal advice too.

I dont really see what you have to complain about. If you hadnt have bought the freehold you would still be in the same situation now and selling your house for even less.

Have a look and see why the others sold and yours didnt. Were they bigger? Cheaper? Mint condition? Bigger garden? the list could go on all day.

roonaldo

Also, this post in the credit card section!

richards499

roonaldo wrote: »

A freehold house is a much more attractive proposition over a leasehold one, particularly if the lease was becoming short. So buying the freehold is a probably a good idea. You never said how long the lease was left, if it were less than 60 years or so it would have been essential as wouldnt have been mortgagable.

I doubt they forced you to do it and you may still sell your house for what you want, be patient. You would have used a solicitor to purchase the freehold and received legal advice too.

I dont really see what you have to complain about. If you hadnt have bought the freehold you would still be in the same situation now and selling your house for even less.

Have a look and see why the others sold and yours didnt. Were they bigger? Cheaper? Mint condition? Bigger garden? the list could go on all day.

The point I was trying to make was houses with the same time left on the lease are selling and still getting mortgage's, the last one sold got 32years mortgage!

roonaldo

richards499 wrote: »

The point I was trying to make was houses with the same time left on the lease are selling and still getting mortgage's, the last one sold got 32years mortgage!

If they were houses with 990 years left on the left then thats ok and perfectly mortgageable. How many years were left on your lease? as if the agent recommended you did something about it sounds like its was probably not many.

InsideInsurance

What do you have in terms of letters/ emails to substantiate exactly what the estate agent advised you? Was it just by phone?

As others have said, a freehold is without doubt more attractive to buyers than a leasehold but as long as there is a reasonable amount of lease left then its not going to be in itself a pure make or break issue. Two houses identical other than one is freehold and the other leasehold then freehold will sell first.

Reality is that two houses are never absolutely identical and so you have to possibly balance one having freehold but a damp problem with the other being leasehold and an out of date bathroom.

dresdendave

Remember that your house is only "worth" what someone else is prepared to pay for it. If it won't sell then the asking price is too high.

richards499

InsideInsurance wrote: »

What do you have in terms of letters/ emails to substantiate exactly what the estate agent advised you? Was it just by phone?

As others have said, a freehold is without doubt more attractive to buyers than a leasehold but as long as there is a reasonable amount of lease left then its not going to be in itself a pure make or break issue. Two houses identical other than one is freehold and the other leasehold then freehold will sell first.

Reality is that two houses are never absolutely identical and so you have to possibly balance one having freehold but a damp problem with the other being leasehold and an out of date bathroom.

We have all relevant e-mails to back up information given by agent.

richards499

roonaldo wrote: »

If they were houses with 990 years left on the left then thats ok and perfectly mortgageable. How many years were left on your lease? as if the agent recommended you did something about it sounds like its was probably not many.

35 years where left on Lease

LisaLou1982

Sounds like sound advise to me.
as others have said - a freehold property is infinitely more attractive than a leasehold