Miss sold a house

jjlandlord

Whilst clearly OP is partly at fault, full "caveat emptor" no longer exists for this kind of transaction.
Agents must disclose any material information needed to make an information decision, and even information that might influence an informed decision.

Here it seems that not only the agent didn't, but that, worse, he provided wrong and misleading information.

mgarl10024

Sadly, I think it is caveat-emptor.

almooney wrote: »

we feel we overpaid at least £5000

Where does this value come from?
Is the £5000 figure the difference between a 3 bed and a 4 bed in your area, or is the £5000 the cost of getting the staircase in your house up to building regs so it is officially a 4 bed?

If the first, expecting £5000 is unreasonable - as you still have a 4th room that just requires conversion.
If the second, you may have a stronger case.

PasturesNew

If it's just the stairs, it could be fixable quite cheaply (depending on the size/layout and what the problem actually is).

It is annoying when there are laws and stuff and still you can't get a quick/easy resolution. Probably best to just let it go and get on with your life.

silvercar

The house is what it is. Some people name their dining room as an optional 4th bedroom. You see it, you like it, you buy it.

Building regs are not retrospective or half the population would be in non compliant homes.

The surveyor pointed out the stairs wouldn't comply to current regs, is there a sign off to the building regs that were in force at the time the loft was converted - your solicitor should have checked for this.

What valuation was put on the property. I assume a valuation was made by the surveyor who noted the stairs issue. Did he value down because of this or did he say the property was still worth full price?

fishpond

mrginge wrote: »

The only reason you have a 3 bedroom house that was advertised as a 4 is down to your own incompetance.

What planet are you living on if you expect the EA to fork out 5-10k?

Planet Ginge

pinkteapot

almooney wrote: »

Anyway survey had come back that the stairs leading to the loft would not be acceptable to current building regulations and that our soliceter should check that. We never really questioned it further,

This is where you went wrong. Don't rely on anything an EA tells you. Listen to your solicitor and surveyor. The surveyor told you there was a problem and you ignored them. Amazed you got an offer of anything from the EA.

If you're happy with the safety of the room, just use it. If you're worried about resale value, get some builders in to quote for bringing the conversion up to standard.

DRP

jjlandlord wrote: »

Whilst clearly OP is partly at fault, full "caveat emptor" no longer exists for this kind of transaction.
Agents must disclose any material information needed to make an information decision, and even information that might influence an informed decision.

Here it seems that not only the agent didn't, but that, worse, he provided wrong and misleading information.

Is this recent legislation?

So, if the EA doesn't provide any information or only relays exactly what the vendor tells them, are they culpable?

Lord_Baltimore

almooney wrote: »

Anyway survey had come back that the stairs leading to the loft would not be acceptable to current building regulations and that our soliceter should check that. We never really questioned it further,

Ouch; take the £550, learn lesson, enjoy new home.

antrobus

DRP wrote: »

Is this recent legislation? ....

Yes,ish

While focusing on the desirable features of a property may help to secure a sale, what isn't always clear is that estate agents are also required to disclose to potential buyers any material problems or drawbacks affecting any of the houses on their books.

In reality of course, this means that the age old concept of caveat emptor or buyer beware is now virtually redundant. The repeal of The Property Misdescription Act last October, along with the recent inclusion of property sales within the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading regulations, marks a significant departure from the traditional norms of house selling – and one which estate agents need to be aware and fully appreciative of.

http://www.estateagenttoday.co.uk/industry-views/1226-speak-up-why-estate-agents-must-not-keep-quiet-on-property-problems

On the other hand, here's an estate agent being prosecuted under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading regulations back in 2012.

http://old.estateagenttoday.co.uk/news_features/Landmark-case-over-property-description-to-set-precedent

DRP wrote: »

...So, if the EA doesn't provide any information or only relays exactly what the vendor tells them, are they culpable?

Failure to provide information that they had, likely would render an EA culpable. Relaying exactly what the vendor tells them, would be disclosure; if that information was inaccurate or misleading, I'd imagine it would depend on reasonableness etc.

EverGreen_2

jjlandlord wrote: »

Whilst clearly OP is partly at fault, full "caveat emptor" no longer exists for this kind of transaction.
Agents must disclose any material information needed to make an information decision, and even information that might influence an informed decision.

Here it seems that not only the agent didn't, but that, worse, he provided wrong and misleading information.

Can you provide the proof of such new legislation?