Estate Agents Neglected to mention Electrical Substation until it turned up in survey

Ryix

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Guest101

Not a chance. That's why you do searches.


There may not be a dispute on the land, and certainly as far as I know there is no requirement to inform about a substation

Surrey_EA

Ryix wrote: »

Are we likely to be able to get the estate agents to pay our solicitor fees as they were legally required to inform us of the electrical substation and also the land dispute?

Can you be certain that the estate agents knew about the issues you have described?

The reason why you employ a solicitor is so that they can unearth any problems, should there be any.

Was the substation not visible when you viewed the property?

theartfullodger

Help me, please: How on earth did you miss an electricity sub-station? They ain't exactly small.

fyiw it wouldn't bother me: Indeed, option for "free" electricity...
https://pure.strath.ac.uk/portal/files/20564764/Harvesting_Energy_from_Magnetic_Fields_to_Power_Condition_Monitoring_Sensors_preprint_version.pdf

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/58004/is-it-possible-to-get-energy-from-electrical-wire-using-induction

Surrey_EA

Ryix wrote: »

Also the land advertised for sale does not entirely belong to the people selling it. surely this alone is enough to cause issue with any costs of fraudulent advertising?

Is there something that makes you think that the estate agents knew about this issue?

Often the estate agent is only as good as the information they are given.

DoaM

Would your claim be against the EA or their principal (the sellers)? After all the EA were simply agents of the sellers.

Guest101

Ryix wrote: »

I cant post a link, but a quick google search "estate agents obliged to reveal property problems" brings back at least a few tidbits, some of which specifically mention electrical substations in close proximity must be disclosed. - If they know though.

Also the land advertised for sale does not entirely belong to the people selling it. surely this alone is enough to cause issue with any costs of fraudulent advertising? - Again if they know.

I would have though a small claims might be my best bet if the estate agent is not forthcoming once informed of their double oversight?

I think you'd be throwing good money after bad.

Guest101

Ryix wrote: »

The electrical substation is hidden behind a shed, fence and planters etc built on land which was sold to provide access to it. part of the property also overlaps land which was never part of the plot.

This is one of the small brick ones, not a massive metal humming behemoth. - So it's not a substation? Just a local relay?

Although i have no evidence the estate agent knew of any of these issues, are there no checks they are required todo? such as ensuring that the land is actually the sellers to sell? - No, they act for the principal. You aren't buying from them

If we cannot prove that the estate agents knew of these issues, is there any likely event we can take the sellers to small claims court to recoup the costs? - go for it. Although not a great deal of money, when you're trying to buy your first house we're not entirely happy to throw away our money and time because someone thought they could pull a fast one. - I don't think they are.

The property in question previously "fell through" on a sale, although the reason provided by the estate agent was simply "they sellers changed their mind"

This is not a big deal, it just needs clarifying. The seller could be leasing the land, or have taken possession of it and not updated the deeds

TBagpuss

The Estate Agents are only liable if they knowingly mislead.
Unless you have evidence that they knew of the issue regarding the extension then I don't see that you have a leg to stand on.

The substation - like others, I would expect this to be something you would see for yourself when you viewed the property.

If you viewed and didn't notice it, why would you expect the agents to be any different? they don't do anything other than visit the property to measure up and take photos, so in the unlikely event that it was not immediately obvious (to you as much as to them).

This is why you have proper searches done via your solicitor, and also why it is important to visit the property yourself to see what's there. Bear in mind, your solicitor never sees the property so they only know what you tell them, or what is in the paperwork.

Guest101

Ryix wrote: »

This is my worry, call me naive - yes but it feels wrong for us to lose out when we have entered this under good faith - morally i agree while the seller and possible the estate agents walk away having only wasted our time and money?

However, they aren't walking away having only wasted your time and money. Neither of them make money by you paying your solicitor.


Mistakes happen. You have no contract, so you would be suing for negligence. You cannot prove that.

ST1991

If you want to go down that route, I suppose the issue here is less the substation/relay, and moreso that you have viewed a property/land for sale when some of that property/land is not included in the sale (e.g the land they are selling to you is not theirs to sell?)