Estate agents either lying or choosing to be wilfully ignorant/hiding details

Gonzo1987

mustang1 wrote: »

It is not an estate agents job to provide details about listing etc. There is a principle of "buyer beware" in that it is up to a buyer to do their own research and find out any issues such as listing and its effects.

You are obviously very well organised but the other buyer may not be and it is not up to the estate agent to point this out. In fact, it might well affect the price of the house (negatively) and if the agent did point this out up front then they could be in trouble with the seller.

It is up to the buyer's solicitor to reveal issues such as this and point them out to the buyer before they commit to purchase.

Might be annoying for you but that's how it works.

Any agent has a legal obligation to declare any material fact that could affect someone's decision to 'view' not even buy a home, and in my opinion that includes a basic knowledge of what buying a grade II listed property involves.

myotherdogisabeagle

mustang1 wrote: »

It is not an estate agents job to provide details about listing etc. There is a principle of "buyer beware" in that it is up to a buyer to do their own research and find out any issues such as listing and its effects.

You are obviously very well organised but the other buyer may not be and it is not up to the estate agent to point this out. In fact, it might well affect the price of the house (negatively) and if the agent did point this out up front then they could be in trouble with the seller.

It is up to the buyer's solicitor to reveal issues such as this and point them out to the buyer before they commit to purchase.

Might be annoying for you but that's how it works.

Unless I'm completely misunderstanding the legislation it is in fact very illegal for an EA to misdescribe a property to a potential buyer. Pleading ignorance in this context is not an excuse according to section two of the Misdescriptions of Property Act (I can't post the link as I'm a new user, but it is on Google).

Edit: yes, what Gonzo said.

Gonzo1987

myotherdogisabeagle wrote: »

I never pretended anything. I'm not sure why you're so aggressive. My point is that these buyers may very well not want to pay more if they knew the truth about the property and the agents are being, at best, willfully ignorant. In fact I have discovered that this is not only dodgy as hell, it's completely illegal due to the Misdescriptions of Property Act 1991. Yes of course I don't want to be outbid by people who think they want the property more than they might...what's wrong with that? I'm completely upfront about that.

The misdescrptions of property act no longer exists it's now under Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

myotherdogisabeagle

Gonzo1987 wrote: »

The misdescrptions of property act no longer exists it's now under Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

Does that still cover this kind of thing?

Gonzo1987

myotherdogisabeagle wrote: »

Does that still cover this kind of thing?

Yes

' The Regulations prohibit 'misleading actions' and 'misleading omissions' that cause, or are likely to cause, the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.'

moneyistooshorttomention

cloo wrote: »

Yes, it is no longer buyer beware; agents are not to cover up things they know in order to make a sale. It's quite new, so not sure what enforcement will be like, but assume it will mean more recourse for buyers if something isn't disclosed.

Actually, it may be that those EA's who do disclose material facts the buyer would want to know are those who are more clued-up to playing a long game.

The one EA round here that told me the house defects of ones I was interested in is the one that I have made a new friend in and pop in for chats and a mutual joke-swopping session with at intervals and, should that lottery-win-we-all-hope-for come up...then guess which one would get my house going to them...

mustang1

Sorry everyone - I didn't read the OP properly. Totally illegal for an estate agent to be asked a direct question and give a false or misleading answer - total misrepresentation.

I agree agents should be up front and open about these things - unfortunately they just don't all know enough about specifics such as listing. A lot of buyers would run a mile at the mention of listing, even though a bit more research and looking at the listing particulars would show that only certain parts of the building are listed which might not have an impact on any proposed alterations.

Obviously that's not the case here.

Sorry for the confusion - OP, I would "enlighten" the agent if I were you.

Bantex_2

Surely as long as the EA advises the the place is listed, it is up to a buyer to check what that involves.

myotherdogisabeagle

Eton_Rifle wrote: »

We get that you want to eliminate the competition by frightening them off.

i don't understand why you think firstly, that the other buyer wants to remodel the house and secondly, that they are naive?

They have the same agent and access to exactly the same information that you do. Two minutes if googling would pull up the full heritage listing. If they do want to make changes, they could even be one step ahead and have already spoken to a planning officer.

Finally, if this is just a grade II listing, it's quite possible that sensitively made adaptions can be made to bring the house up to modern family life specifications. The idea isn't to preserve the house 'as is' in perpetuity but to maintain the character and integrity.

I didnt say they were naive...not sure where you got that from. And speaking to a planning officer would not leave them one step ahead because I have already done this myself.

I know for a fact that they expect to be allowed to put plumbing and bathroom upstairs and a local conservation officer told me straight up that there is no guarantee that this would be allowed. It's 50:50 at best as the floorboards and joists etc have never been sawed through and it's extremely unusual to find a listed house in practically it's original condition (the previous owner lived there for 95 years and never renovated). I am positive that having full knowledge would impact on their decision to some extent, but the EAs are not giving them the full story, just as they tried to convince me that I could do whatever I wished with the inside at will which is 100% not the case.

I can live with losing out to someone who is willing to pay more, but there's a serious chance that these people will buy the house and then find they can't make the changes they thought they could and that's a waste of all of our time. Of course they may choose to go ahead anyway, once they know the facts, but at the moment they are being fed misleading information which could affect their decision.

myotherdogisabeagle

Bantex wrote: »

Surely as long as the EA advises the the place is listed, it is up to a buyer to check what that involves.

Not if they are specifically telling them that they can do whatever they wish to the interior when the listing specifies that they cannot. There is actually a law against that.