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

Bantex_2

If they buy and put the plumbing in, the chances are that they will get away with it if they feign ignorance. You cannot reinstate unnotched joists etc without destroying more of the original fabric.

Good chance they know exactly what they are doing but don't want to publicise the fact.

myotherdogisabeagle

Bantex wrote: »

If they buy and put the plumbing in, the chances are that they will get away with it if they feign ignorance. You cannot reinstate unnotched joists etc without destroying more of the original fabric.

Good chance they know exactly what they are doing but don't want to publicise the fact.

They wouldn't get away with it unless the planning office never found out. If you own a listed building you have a responsibility to make sure you have permission to do whatever it is you wish to do. If you go ahead you can't feign ignorance and you will be held liable for costs incurred in returning the property to its original condition.

Bantex_2

myotherdogisabeagle wrote: »

They wouldn't get away with it unless the planning office never found out. If you own a listed building you have a responsibility to make sure you have permission to do whatever it is you wish to do. If you go ahead you can't feign ignorance and you will be held liable for costs incurred in returning the property to its original condition.

If the reinstatement involved destroying more of the original fabric, chances are it would not be enforced.
Developers use these sort of tricks all the time.

myotherdogisabeagle

Bantex wrote: »

If the reinstatement involved destroying more of the original fabric, chances are it would not be enforced.
Developers use these sort of tricks all the time.

I don't know how likely it is that they'd get away with it as the house is very prominent in a fairly nosy small village, but I suppose maybe they could. That's beyond my control, but I'd feel better if I at least knew that the EAs weren't feeding them incorrect information because they are insisting that I'm wrong when it's easily proved that I am right. If they intend to go ahead and knock things down regardless then that's a different story.

Edit: I'm not sure why a couple of posters are acting as though I'm the enemy of the other bidder. I know if I was buying a house in another country I would want to know if the EAs were hiding something from me that might make me not want to buy it. If they are "scared off" it'll be because of facts that would have come to light anyway. It's not like I'm fabricating anything. If it was me and it bothered me I'd rather know. Obviously I want the house, but it's also true that they may not want the house if they know the truth. That would be their choice. It's to their benefit to have all of the info.

kaya

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.

We are buying at the moment and were told that they do not have to offer up any information but when asked must tell the truth

myotherdogisabeagle

kaya wrote: »

We are buying at the moment and were told that they do not have to offer up any information but when asked must tell the truth

I asked and they feigned ignorance. I went away and researched and consulted a conservation officer and came back with this info and they still insisted that I was mistaken even though the listing specifies the unusual original layout.

Thrugelmir

myotherdogisabeagle wrote: »

I don't know how likely it is that they'd get away with it as the house is very prominent in a fairly nosy small village, but I suppose maybe they could. That's beyond my control, but I'd feel better if I at least knew that the EAs weren't feeding them incorrect information because they are insisting that I'm wrong when it's easily proved that I am right. If they intend to go ahead and knock things down regardless then that's a different story.

What the other prospective purchasers propose or actually do is none of your business. I'm sure that they'll consider all factors if they intend to make alterations to the property after purchase.

myotherdogisabeagle

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What the other prospective purchasers propose or actually do is none of your business. I'm sure that they'll consider all factors if they intend to make alterations to the property after purchase.

It is illegal for the estate agent to knowingly misell a property, or not exercise due diligence in making sure they are not misrepresenting the property. You've clearly paid no attention at all, so I'm not sure why you're weighing in. The prospective buyers probably don't know that they would not be allowed to do all the things they plan to do. That's my point. They might not be interested in buying if they knew and if I were them I'd want to know.

My point is not about whether or not they eventually do things without permission, it's about the fact that they are currently potentially buying a property that they would not buy if they were not being misled.

It becomes very much my business if I miss out on the house because they buy it when they never would have if they had been properly informed, and then I end up buying it off them 6 months down the line. If they still want to buy it now (all things considered) then fair enough, but why should I cover for the EA when they are breaking the law and, potentially, causing both myself and the other bidders unnecessary hassle?

Bantex_2

myotherdogisabeagle wrote: »

It is illegal for the estate agent to knowingly misell a property, or not exercise due diligence in making sure they are not misrepresenting the property. You've clearly paid no attention at all, so I'm not sure why you're weighing in. The prospective buyers probably don't know that they would not be allowed to do all the things they plan to do. That's my point. They might not be interested in buying if they knew and if I were them I'd want to know.

My point is not about whether or not they eventually do things without permission, it's about the fact that they are currently potentially buying a property that they would not buy if they were not being misled.

It becomes very much my business if I miss out on the house because they buy it when they never would have if they had been properly informed, and then I end up buying it off them 6 months down the line. If they still want to buy it now (all things considered) then fair enough, but why should I cover for the EA when they are breaking the law and, potentially, causing both myself and the other bidders unnecessary hassle?

That may be the case, but it really is not your business as you have a vested interest.

myotherdogisabeagle

Bantex wrote: »

That may be the case, but it really is not your business as you have a vested interest.

How do you come to the conclusion that it really isn't my business because I have a vested interest? My vested interest does not negate the fact that the EA is breaking the law and the other buyer is potentially unknowingly wasting a ton of time and money on this. Surely that makes it more my business than any other scenario. Would you stand back and allow someone to hoodwink someone into buying something you want, when you know they wouldn't buy if they were fully informed - as they legally should be?