PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.

Misrepresented house sale has fallen through - can I claim for costs?

Options
2

Comments

  • Surrey_EA
    Surrey_EA Posts: 2,042 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    dares_uk wrote: »


    The only way would be to sue the EA/Seller. I have/am going through the same process at the moment after having a complaint to the TPO dismissed on the grounds its a consumer/solicitor issue, and was advised to continue my case through the small claims court, at a cost just over £200.

    Obviously I don't know the details of your particular situation, however in the OPs case, and based on the information provided, I wouldn't waste my time or money, and put it down to experience.
  • ReadingTim
    ReadingTim Posts: 3,970 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    dares_uk wrote: »
    I have/am going through the same process at the moment after having a complaint to the TPO dismissed on the grounds its a consumer/solicitor issue, and was advised to continue my case through the small claims court, at a cost just over £200.

    And have you won your case, or just spend £200 to learn something you could have learnt here for nothing?
  • eddddy
    eddddy Posts: 16,451 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper
    Options
    dares_uk wrote: »
    you could sue them for misrepresentation, they have been negligent in checking the details of what they are selling.
    dares_uk wrote: »
    The only way would be to sue the EA/Seller. I have/am going through the same process at the moment...

    On what legal basis are you suing the EA/Seller?

    You can't sue them for misrepresentation, because you don't have a contract with either of them.
    dares_uk wrote: »
    after having a complaint to the TPO dismissed on the grounds its a consumer/solicitor issue,

    So do you mean you're suing your solicitor?
    dares_uk wrote: »
    ...and was advised to continue my case through the small claims court, at a cost just over £200.


    When you say "Advised", do you mean the TPO said...

    "I advise you to sue because you have a strong case and a good chance of winning"

    Or, did the TPO say:

    "I'm dismissing your case, so if you want to pursue it I'd advise you to go to the small claims court" (which kind of means "go away and bother somebody else instead of me")
  • AnotherJoe
    AnotherJoe Posts: 19,622 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Options
    I dont see why you cant sue the seller and have a good chance of winning, its them that misrepresented.
  • kinger101
    kinger101 Posts: 6,285 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    You've not really explain the misrepresentation.

    I would have though it was pretty obvious that a "share of freehold" property is by definition is a leasehold property.
    "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" - Confucius
  • Mutton_Geoff
    Mutton_Geoff Posts: 3,820 Forumite
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    kinger101 wrote: »
    You've not really explain the misrepresentation.

    I would have though it was pretty obvious that a "share of freehold" property is by definition is a leasehold property.

    Unfortunately not. There is a freeholder who collects rent from the leaseholders under the terms of the lease. A share of the freehold is not a lease.


    When buying a property, you must carry out due diligence. Much of this is carried out by professionals. Who charge a fee. Your professional advisors have advised you and saved you a much larger sum of money further down the line. Time to adjust your offer or move onto the next place.
    Signature on holiday for two weeks
  • eddddy
    eddddy Posts: 16,451 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper
    Options
    Mutton_Geoff wrote: »
    There is a freeholder who collects rent from the leaseholders under the terms of the lease. A share of the freehold is not a lease.

    When people talk about a 'Share of Freehold' flat - they actually mean a leasehold flat (and the lease would say a ground rent is payable etc) - with the freehold jointly owned by all the leaseholders.
  • Mutton_Geoff
    Mutton_Geoff Posts: 3,820 Forumite
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    eddddy wrote: »
    When people talk about a 'Share of Freehold' flat - they actually mean a leasehold flat (and the lease would say a ground rent is payable etc) - with the freehold jointly owned by all the leaseholders.

    Correct, but as I said, a share of the freehold is not a leasehold. The freehold can be owned by a company, a person, a group of people, or the group of people who are the leaseholders. In the case you mention, the leaseholders may pay themselves (the shareholders of the freehold) rent etc, but kinger101 is wrong in his/her statement.
    Signature on holiday for two weeks
  • davidmcn
    davidmcn Posts: 23,596 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    Mutton_Geoff wrote: »
    Correct, but as I said, a share of the freehold is not a leasehold. The freehold can be owned by a company, a person, a group of people, or the group of people who are the leaseholders. In the case you mention, the leaseholders may pay themselves (the shareholders of the freehold) rent etc, but kinger101 is wrong in his/her statement.

    I think they're correct in that it implies what is being sold is a leasehold property plus some sort of share in the freehold.

    But having said that, it's not clear from the OP what any misrepresentation actually was, as it appears to be the duration of the lease which was the problem - so had they actually claimed it was a longer term remaining?
  • kinger101
    kinger101 Posts: 6,285 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    edited 7 December 2017 at 10:54PM
    Options
    Mutton_Geoff wrote: »
    Correct, but as I said, a share of the freehold is not a leasehold. The freehold can be owned by a company, a person, a group of people, or the group of people who are the leaseholders. In the case you mention, the leaseholders may pay themselves (the shareholders of the freehold) rent etc, but kinger101 is wrong in his/her statement.

    But I said the "share of freehold" property is a leasehold property, which is correct. It was already implicit that OP wasn't interested in solely purchasing the share of the freehold. It is possible that they just didn't understand what this meant.
    "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" - Confucius
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 248K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards