Help - Estate Agent mislead on a property purchse which has now cost us thousands of pounds losses

Davesnave

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

.... I know someone who ruled out houses because of ridiculous things like there not being a Sainsbury!!!8217;s near enough, should the estate agent have highlighted that? :rotfl:

It's not ridiculous at all. Look, if there isn't a Sainsbury's nearby, Waitrose will likely be full of riff-raff!

Surrey_EA

davidmcn wrote: »

I really don't think so, unless it was a particularly notorious incident.

The advice I have received is that it would definitely need to be.

ETA:

According to the NAEA, difficult and sensitive issues about a property that relate to previous owners should be flagged up, not just before a transaction but before any viewings.

These would include murders or suicides.

https://www.estateagenttoday.co.uk/news_features/Lawyers-could-have-field-day-over-agents-duties-to-disclose-property-information

System

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

That’s bonkers, where would it end? I know someone who ruled out houses because of ridiculous things like there not being a Sainsbury’s near enough, should the estate agent have highlighted that? :rotfl:

Yes its bonkers but there is a legal requirement to disclose all relevant information that may influence someone making an offer.


davidmcn suggested I read the CRA which I did, its really just a jazzed up version of the PMA and it clearly states that

agrinnall

Simonr66 wrote: »

Yes its bonkers but there is a legal requirement to disclose all relevant information that may influence someone making an offer.

Who decides what's relevant? I cannot see how an EA could be expected to know that a nearby Sainsburys is going to be of importance to a potential buyer. There are simply some things that that it's up to the buyer to find out, and these days it is easier than it has ever been to find out pretty much everything about a neighbourhood without ever leaving the comfort of your armchair, so there's no excuse not to do it..

teneighty

I am in agreement with simonr66. It's funny that people criticised the OP for not knowing the property was in a Level 3 Flood Zone but are perfectly happy to exonerate the estate agent.

What is the point of having legislation to hold these people to account if the general public are so quick to dismiss it. It is almost as if you are so used to estate agent lying to you that you don't want laws to protect you from it.

I had a quick scan of the latest guidance and one example that jumped out at me was loft conversions. Apparently the agent has a duty to obtain evidence of all relevant approvals for the work before they market the property or disclose the lack of consents. How often do we see posts on here where the lack of approval does not surface until well into the buying process potentially causing the sale to collapse and the buyer wasting money? It seems they have a valid claim against the incompetent/lying estate agent.

But hey, lets get sidetracked by talking about murders or where the nearest Sainsburys is rather than answer the question.

robatwork

I was going to ask what you have in writing from the EA.

But as this is another one-posting wonder, I won't bother.

hazyjo

I still don't get why the EA is responsible for pointing this out. It's like buying a house on a main road or with a motorway two streets away. Some things are just a case of 'state the bleedin' obvious'. If it was something with the house, yes. Absolutely. But this is something the OP should have been aware of. Even if they had accidentally missed a river or whatever near to the property, they would most certainly have been aware of it when the searches came back. Things like that are clearly listed with maps/diagrams. It's very unlikely that happened a couple of weeks before completion.


I'm seriously not here defending EAs as a general rule. Mostly, they're utterly useless, but I'll stick up for a good one! I just think in this case they're not to blame


I don't see how it has affected their decision to buy anyway. My house in Level 3 was not worth less because of it. Shame the OP hasn't returned to explain, or let us know if it's an area which has been prone to flooding - although, again, if the town or street had been under metres of water, you'd think they'd have known about that too if moving there. Google told me which streets in Hertford to be wary of due to major flooding when I was thinking about moving over that way. Wasn't hard.

teneighty

I looked at a cottage last year that was in a Level 3 flood risk zone as a potential holiday let. It was worth about half of those similar nearby properties that were just outside of the zone.

It was fully disclosed by the agent and even with the low asking price it took a very long time to sell. It was near to a river but there was nothing obvious on the ground why that property was Zone 3 as opposed to other nearby properties that were only Zone 2. It took a lot of digging to find some old photographs of a flood which revealed the water level was almost exactly in line with the Zone 3 boundary so if the agent had not been so honest a potential buyer could have got a very nasty surprise.

I eventually bought a house in another village. The centre of the village is Zone 3 but the tiny stream that runs through is dry for most of year. However, last time it flooded it washed away 2 houses.

Red-Squirrel_2

Simonr66 wrote: »

Yes its bonkers but there is a legal requirement to disclose all relevant information that may influence someone making an offer.

But... the distance to the nearest Sainsburys influenced this person's decision not to buy. Are you really saying the agent should have thought about that and discussed the travel times to the house from various supermarkets?

System

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

But... the distance to the nearest Sainsburys influenced this person's decision not to buy. Are you really saying the agent should have thought about that and discussed the travel times to the house from various supermarkets?

lets move on from the supermarket issue as it is somewhat trivial as let be honest the distance to the supermarket isn't what purchasers look at when buying a home.


The Op felt misled by the EA over the fact the house was in a level 3 flood plain and felt he/she should have been made aware of that. It is the EAs duty to have that info and that is one of the questions that should be on a property fact sheet.


Here is a segment from guidelines issued by Powys Council, still relevant in England.


The focus of CPRs is to ensure the consumer is treated fairly. The guidance says unfairness can arise from:

• Giving false or misleading information
• Hiding or failing to provide material information
• Exerting undue pressure
• Not acting with a professional standard that is in accordance of what is expected
• Engaging in banned practices

Other than banned practices the other breaches have a threshold which is – were/are they likely to affect the transactional decision of the average consumer. The average consumer is one who is reasonably well informed:

• The important questions for any court case is whether your act or omission is likely to have an impact on the average consumer, not the consumer in question
• The Consumer is defined as Clients, Potential Clients and Potential buyers or sellers who are not directly your client