House sale about to collapse

londonmaiden

ognum wrote: »

How would you plan to recover your costs?

from the estate agent, and then if they do not comply the ombudsman will help

londonmaiden

xylophone wrote: »

Which might be true?



Which might be true?



Can you prove that these people pulled out on account of the situation with the solar panels and that even if they did, they gave this as a reason to the Estate Agent?

Can you prove that the Estate Agent knew that there was likely to be a query concerning the solar panels?

Did you yourselves not feel that it was up to you to clarify the solar panel situation before you made any offer etc?

Yes and yes, no we can't prove it but we don't need to prove it. If the vendor didn't tell them they should have asked the question, not us, we are the consumer, they are selling us the house. We are meant to be protected under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations Act, they failed to mention a significant non-standard feature of the property, which specifically refers to solar panel roof leases.

thequant

xylophone wrote: »

Can you prove that these people pulled out on account of the situation with the solar panels and that even if they did, they gave this as a reason to the Estate Agent?

Can you prove that the Estate Agent knew that there was likely to be a query concerning the solar panels?

Did you yourselves not feel that it was up to you to clarify the solar panel situation before you made any offer etc?

Popular misconception but you don't need to prove anything to win a civil case. You just need to win on balance of probabilities, sometimes even just circumstantial evidence can be enough for a judge to rule in your favour.

LisaLou1982

londonmaiden wrote: »

Yes true but as one buyer has already pulled out after spending £1500 on a survey it is likely they do know now and have done for a while.


Yes I think this is what we will end up doing, as long as we can recover our costs we will just have to put it down to (more) bad luck!

You wont be able to cover your costs from the EA. You pay your solicitor to find out the legal information. The only information the EA is obliged to provide is that supplied by the vendor.

thequant

LisaLou1982 wrote: »

You wont be able to cover your costs from the EA. You pay your solicitor to find out the legal information. The only information the EA is obliged to provide is that supplied by the vendor.

No they are not, they have a legal duty to disclose any material facts that they are aware of.


You can be liable for inaction as well as action

londonmaiden

LisaLou1982 wrote: »

You wont be able to cover your costs from the EA. You pay your solicitor to find out the legal information. The only information the EA is obliged to provide is that supplied by the vendor.

I'm afraid you are wrong.

The OFT Compliance with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations Act 2008, states under clause 4.15, 'Misleading Omissions' 'When you market a Property' 'Failing to mention significant non-standard features that you are aware of about a property for sale (for example house is freehold but garage is leasehold, public right of way through garden, shared ownership of parking area and path, property has a sitting tenant, roof space is leased to a solar panel provider).

Additionally, under the Code of Practice for Residential Estate Agents it states, 'You must by law comply with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991.

It is a breach of the CPRs for businesses to mislead consumers by failing to give them the information they need in order to make an informed decision, where this causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a different transactional decision. This is known as a misleading omission
A misleading omission focuses on what you have not said – that is, information you have left out, hidden, not made clear or been slow to disclose, where this has or would have a particular effect on the average consumer. The duty not to mislead by omission is limited to providing what is necessary information.

We would not be seeking to recover our costs if we had not been told we have grounds to do so, we have done our homework!

makeyourdaddyproud

Wouldn't it have been better for the vendor to have bought them against the mortgage? That way, they take the debt with them and there wouldn't have been as much trouble. Now you risk pulling out, money lost for you - time lost for the vendor who in all likelyhood is now stuck with the house.

xylophone

even when we asked on viewing the property about the panels,

You saw the panels - you asked about the panels - what exactly did you ask? If you were not satisfied with the answers you received, it was up to you to enquire further before you incurred costs?

londonmaiden

xylophone wrote: »

You saw the panels - you asked about the panels - what exactly did you ask? If you were not satisfied with the answers you received, it was up to you to enquire further before you incurred costs?

Hang on, why should we as a consumer not be able to trust the information supplied by the estate agent and vendor? NOTHING was mentioned about the lease of the roof in the particulars, why should we need to ask? This information should be FORTHCOMING so we can make an informed decision. We have no experience of dealing with solar panels or roof leases, it is unfair to us a consumer for all of the points I have stated above. Would you assume a garage was leasehold if it was marketed with the property and just sold in the particulars as a garage or would you expect this information to be relayed to you?

D00gie72

Have you actualy asked your mortgage lender if the panels/lease would be an issue?
I have solar panels on my house - and in the process of selling. I recently rang a number of mortgage lenders to find out if my panels would be an issue - and ALL of then said not a problem - they would still lend.
Just wondering if it's just a preconception that is putting you off this house - or an actuall reality of not being able to get a mortgage. From my experience the panels will save you money on electricity - about 30-40% in my case so why disregard this house unless you have actually been refused a mortgage?

Just a thought...