hoew truthful are Estate Agents?

Mossfarr

I know this thread has been on for some time but the title makes me laugh every time I see it.
The idea of an honest estate agent - hilarious!!

AdrianC

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

They are now meant to inform buyers of all material facts about the sale, answering questions the buyer forgets to ask.

Blimey o'Reilly! Who's to know what questions a buyer might possibly forget to ask? It's a list a MILE long, with all sorts of weird and wonderful entries on it...

For a start I would ban the use of those fish eye camera lenses; the ones that make the gardens look twice as long as they really are..

I idly wonder how many people buy houses without once visiting them and seeing the length of the garden for themselves.

It costs £3 on line there and then to print off the plan of the boundaries from the Land Registry plus another £3 to get a summary of the legal ownership. While Estate Agents are not required even to do this I woud recommend that all house hunters invest the £6 before even viewing a property they fancy.

Fairly pointless, since the solicitor will go through those as a matter of course, and always has done.

John_Pierpoint

.......and how much does a solicitor cost the potential buyer - £6 ?

The standard package of searches costs hundreds of pounds. Often they are simply charging £50 for a screen shot from a water company that shows a sewer goes past a house in the roadway, when in actual fact the water companies were paid, by your taxes and mine, for taking over all sewers jointly used or crossing someonelse's land; which eventually connected to the sewage works, 5 years ago. The Land Registry will provide a photocopy of a complicated document for £7 - If they can do that tell me £50 is not simple profiteering.

As someone who once drove a round trip of 150 miles to look at a countside property with a huge asbestos barn built across the back garden, in pre internet days, I would suggest that is a material fact.

Read the fairly feeble ombudsman's findings (he gets himself into a bit of a tangle over "cross over agreements" - other wise know as a "dropped curb") .

You cannot really blame estate agents, because it is still possible to become one with next to no knowledge.

Let me help you - this is what you are expected to do:

https://www.estateagenttoday.co.uk/news_features/Ombudsman-When-and-what-agents-should-disclose

googler

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

As someone who once drove a round trip of 150 miles to look at a countside property with a huge asbestos barn built across the back garden in pre internet days, I would suggest that is a material fact.

I would suggest that a quick look at Google satellite view of the property would have shown you what was in or around it.


Let me help you - this is what you are expected to do:

https://www.estateagenttoday.co.uk/news_features/Ombudsman-When-and-what-agents-should-disclose

QUOTE
The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) guidance on property sales ... makes clear that if agents treat consumers and competitors fairly, then they are unlikely to breach the regulations.

The regulations emphasise that it is the ‘consumer’ who must be treated fairly, so although the agent is instructed by the seller or the landlord there is a clear responsibility also to be fair and even-handed with the buyer or tenant ...

In assessing whether they are acting appropriately, the agent should bear in mind:

• The definition of a consumer is an individual acting for purposes outside their business.

• The definition of an ‘average’ consumer is someone who is reasonably well-informed, and reasonably observant and circumspect. It is expected that such a person would pay some attention to documentation but not necessarily to the small print unless key points are brought to their attention; they would check out publicly-available facts if that is easy so to do but they could be influenced in those checks by what information they have been given.

• The impact their act or omission in describing a property would have on an average consumer and in particular their financial behaviour.

The OFT guidance makes clear that in the most straightforward sales the material information that would need to be given to potential buyers may be quite basic ...

However, that guidance then goes on to say that the material information that would need to be given will be dependent on the circumstances of each sale.

The application of the regulations is therefore not an easy matter. The nature of those regulations is that they do not specify precisely how the legislation applies in individual scenarios, rather it is left open to interpretation by the agent according to the circumstances presented to him.
UNQUOTE

What kind of basis is this for clear, unambiguous legislation? None at all, IMHO

AdrianC

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

.......and how much does a solicitor cost the potential buyer - £6 ?

The marginal extra cost is £0.

John_Pierpoint

Are you both estate agents ?

The marginal extra cost of driving 150 miles and losing a days pay is £0 - what sort of logic is that ?

Please read the whole article including all the examples before breaking someone else's copyright with a massive partial quotation.

By the way the original poster's question is very similar to one of trhe examples quoted by the ombudsman in my original link - the Estate Agent had to pay modest compensation.

AdrianC

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

before breaking someone else's copyright

...ohfertheloveofgawd...

Seriously?