Wrong Advertising found during survey

G_M

kinger101 wrote: »

Hi

Welcome to the forum. Estate agents are bound by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs). Specific guidance for EAs was published by the OFT (now defunct, the the CPRs still stand), and is available here.

webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402142426/http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/estate-agents/OFT1364.pdf

Estate agents are required to advertise the property correctly, and should not hide behind ignorance (didn't know) where it is pertinent to find this information out in order to market the property. Section 4.12 onwards details the EA's responsibilities.

If they never asked the vendor about whether they 100% owned the lease, had reason to suspect they didn't (e.g., perhaps they handled previous sale to vendor), or did not subsequently disclose this to you as soon as it became apparent, they have probably breached the CPR.

If you can demonstrate than this may have occurred, you should first contact the the head office of the estate agents at the address they have for making complaints. If this does not work, the EA will belong to an Ombudsman scheme (such as TPO) and you can make a complaint there.

If you can show the EAs having acted negligently or dishonestly, you should ask them to cover all your costs incurred to date. If they have acted correctly, perhaps this will give you enough information to pursue the vendor.

There is some further info here from TPO.

http://www.tpos.co.uk/code-of-practice-sales.php

Maybe we should just dispense with soliciors and rely on agents to check all property Titles, searches, property condition etc and include all relevant data upfront in the advertising?

Oh. Yes. they tried that didn't they? Home Information Packs!

Solicitors are used to check legal Title. That's their job during the pre-Exchange process.

I'm no real fan of estate agents, but they can only realistically advertise a property in accordance with what a seller tells them. Expecting them to do legal checks, surveys etc alters the whole conveyancing pocess.

If a seller doesn't know, or knows but doesn't tell, that is not really the estate agent's fault......

kinger101

G_M wrote: »

Maybe we should just dispense with soliciors and rely on agents to check all property Titles, searches, property condition etc and include all relevant data upfront in the advertising?

Oh. Yes. they tried that didn't they? Home Information Packs!

Solicitors are used to check legal Title. That's their job during the pre-Exchange process.

I'm no real fan of estate agents, but they can only realistically advertise a property in accordance with what a seller tells them. Expecting them to do legal checks, surveys etc alters the whole conveyancing pocess.

If a seller doesn't know, or knows but doesn't tell, that is not really the estate agent's fault......

What do you mean by seller doesn't know? They don't know whether they own 90% or 100% of a property? C'mon. Get real.

All I'm pointing out is that if the EA was aware, or became aware, then they've breached CPR. And they're treading on thin ice if they've not asked.


"4.13 Crucially, you cannot avoid liability for misleading by omission by adopting an 'ask no questions, shut one's eyes and close one's ears' approach."

The OFT have already indicated that an EA relying on what a vendor tells them may not be sufficient. For example, loft conversions not completed to building regulations being marketed as bedrooms. The vendor is employing the EA to market their property. Some responsibility falls back on the EA to ensure that this is marketed correctly. It's their job! Marketing properties. It doesn't dispense with due diligence on the part of the buyer. It merely stops buyers wasting money on aborted purchases.

Hoploz

Could it be possible that it means the seller currently owns 90% but at the point of selling will staircase and you would be buying the full 100% ?

Thrugelmir

kinger101 wrote: »

The OFT have already indicated that an EA relying on what a vendor tells them may not be sufficient. For example, loft conversions not completed to building regulations being marketed as bedrooms.

That is a visible alteration to the property that can be questioned.

kinger101

Thrugelmir wrote: »

That is a visible alteration to the property that can be questioned.

The EA can also ask the vendor whether they actually own the property they want to sell. It would view it as a material omission if the 90% ownership was not mentioned. Given the sums involved, this being a money saving forum and all, it doesn't cost the OP anything more than time to refer this to the head office and then the ombudsman citing material omission under CPR. Let them decide rather than some random people on the internet, many of whom are not actually aware that EAs have some responsibilities when marketing a property.

From page 26 of OFT guidance

The information that is material and which you should provide to
potential buyers who are considering whether to view a property is likely to include, as a minimum, the asking price, location, number and size of rooms, and the form of ownership (for example freehold or leasehold). In the most straightforward sales, there may be little you need to add to this as the buyer's interest in the property grows. However, much will depend on the circumstances of each sale.

And page 27

4.10 If you do not know a piece of material information, it could still be a misleading omission if you do not disclose it


Funnily enough, I gave similar advice on this forum to someone who had surveys done and found out that a loft conversion marketed as a bedroom was not done to regs. Everyone else came back the with came arguments about that's what surveys are for etc. That guy took it up with head office and got every penny back.

kingstreet

Hoploz wrote: »

Could it be possible that it means the seller currently owns 90% but at the point of selling will staircase and you would be buying the full 100% ?

That's why I suggested this would normally see a dual listing.

Leo2020

kingstreet wrote: »

What makes you think the agent was aware of this?

It's not exactly a common scenario. If the property was offered as SO and 100% owned, you know the agent is aware of the situation.

How does the surveyor know about the lease? I'd expect them to defer to solicitor/conveyancer and if you don't have this verified by yours yet, you should.

All a surveyor can do is rely on what he/she is told at the time. That is not proper diligence and shouldn't be relied upon.

Not sure that's true. There is even an option on Rightmove to search for shared ownership properties.

"WAYS TO BUY:
Auction (3)
Shared ownership (4)
Non-Shared ownership (1000+)"

Plus the description them tells you how much you are purchasing for example/paying rent:

"Prices shown represent a 50% purchase. Please note that there is a rental charge payable on the remaining 50%."

"RENT Payable on all shared ownership properties. The rent on this property based on a 50% share will be £131.77 per calendar month."

The OP should have been made aware of how much of the property they were purchasing. How could a property be advertised correctly if you don't know whether you are buying say 90% of a house for 100k or 100% for a 100k.