Estate agent didn't tell me I wouldn't be able to rent the flat out I was buying.

DandelionPatrol

Christabel wrote: »

...with any realistic hope of it being settled.

Thrugelmir has already made the point that you could have got the details from the Land Registry yourself and checked out the point. £3 for the details and an hour's work = £20. You have a duty to contains your losses!

Sorry, the money you spend on solicitors and surveyors etc is just to find out this sort of thing and the money seems to have been well spent in avoiding buying this place.

mrginge

Christabel wrote: »

...with any realistic hope of it being settled.

No there isn't

ognum

There are a few blocks where I live which have 'no letting' clauses in their leases.

These flats are seldom advertised as for owner occupancy only when sold but are always less expensive than equivalent flats in other buildings.

It always surprises me that purchasers don't wonder why they are less expensive, there is always a reason!

silvercar

I do wonder if this is an unfair contract term.

Thrugelmir

kinger101 wrote: »

I think you meant "imply" not "infer". I don't think the OP's inference that this was suitable as a BTL property is unreasonable, and is one an average consumer might arrive at. This might place more responsibility back onto the agent to confirm there are no restrictions of letting before advertising it as an investment property.

No.

"deduce or conclude (something) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements."

I choose the word intentionally. As it was the OP's reading of the written word nothing else.

Freecall

I am not sure where this idea that EA's have a duty to act in the interests of the buyer comes from.

Even if you believe that the EA should check out the detailed terms of the leases of all the properties they put in their window, they are not generally qualified to advise on the content or the implications of a lease anyway.

Balance this against the fact that it would take you half an hour to check it out for yourself before putting in an offer and I would suggest that simply from a practical point of view the onus rests with the buyer.

Lord_Baltimore

PasturesNew wrote: »

....so they can spend more time fannying about on facebook with their mate.

Made me.....:rotfl:

kinger101

Thrugelmir wrote: »

No.

"deduce or conclude (something) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements."

I choose the word intentionally. As it was the OP's reading of the written word nothing else.

Then what you have written doesn't make much sense. If you substitute the word deduce or conclude to your original sentence, you'll see it's grammatically incorrect.

JJG

kinger101 wrote: »

I think you meant "imply" not "infer". I don't think the OP's inference that this was suitable as a BTL property is unreasonable, and is one an average consumer might arrive at. This might place more responsibility back onto the agent to confirm there are no restrictions of letting before advertising it as an investment property.

Someone buying a buy-to-let property isn't an average consumer. It's a business purchase surely?

kinger101

JJG wrote: »

Someone buying a buy-to-let property isn't an average consumer. It's a business purchase surely?

It's all about context. If it's an advert for an "investment property", it doesn't mean some random bloke in the supermarket buying a tin of food for Fido.