Fraud Act 2006 and Vendors who pull out

Guy_Montag

On t'other hand I'd love to see a few landlords up before the beak for fraudulently letting without permission.

Badger_Lady

I've just read through this whole thread and find it all very interesting...

bgwuser wrote: »

The EA told us that they could not understand why they had pulled out. The vendors said it was because they had not had a letter from the EA. But their solicitor had had the letter. Then they said they wanted to do some work on the house. Why would you want to work on a house you are selling for the full asking price? We have given them the opportunity of re-imbursing our costs but they have not responded - other than to rush off and put in a retro PP.

Whatever their reasons, they pulled out after you had incurred costs (sounds to me like they decided they needed more money therefore were going to do some work to up their market value / asking price).

But what was the advantage to them in "intentionally defrauding" you? Revenge? Vendetta? A deal with the surveyor to get a cut of their fee? Maybe I've read too much Agatha Christie, but doesn't a criminal need a motive?

dmg24

bgwuser wrote: »

The EA told us that they could not understand why they had pulled out. The vendors said it was because they had not had a letter from the EA. But their solicitor had had the letter. Then they said they wanted to do some work on the house. Why would you want to work on a house you are selling for the full asking price? We have given them the opportunity of re-imbursing our costs but they have not responded - other than to rush off and put in a retro PP.

Why should they reimburse your costs?!!

The transaction broke down either because there was a breakdown in communication, and/ or because the vendors decided to upgrade their current home rather than moving. There was no malicious intent involved (except for now, on the part of the OP).

The police have endless serious crime to deal with - crimes such as murder, drug dealing, and sexual offences. The economic crimes unit is there to deal with crimes such as money laundering, which is commonly connected with drugs and people trafficking. I cannot believe that our taxes should be diverted from such serious crime to investigating the OP's petty complaint.

(Rant over )

nobblyned

Your purchase did not fall through because of the issue over PP, it fell through because the vendor pulled out. - Hence there can be no intent to defraud by lieing about the date of application for PP because on the date of the 'lie' their intent was still to proceed with the sale.

The lie did not lead to your loss, their decision to pull out did. No fraud there I'm afraid.

John_Pierpoint

Fact: The FBI now rates electronic fraud in all its forms, as a bigger organised crime than the drugs trade. It is largely risk free and it puts real hard currency into the hands of scumbags in corrupt fly-blown countries.

Fact: you cannot even report most of it to the police since April - they have not got the staff and they cannot cope.

Fact: "No smoke without fire" If you are a victim of identity fraud you can never prove it was not you; so you loose your good name if not your money.

Experience: I helped my single daughter buy a modest end of terrace house. The first one that was suitable was owned by an old couple downsizing into sheltered accommodation. We were prepared to pay the asking price, but they messed us about no end. The real reason was that they wanted their pile of bricks to stay a "real family home". As they found out the hard way, young marrieds, who have started a family too soon cannot get and cannot afford high loan to value mortgages. The second house we found was an ex council property and the seller forgot to mention she could not sell for another 6 months because of pay back clauses in the right to buy legislation - she still had to juggle her debts until then before getting her hands on all the equity.
Those people did us a favour because a third house came up owned by the executors of someone who had died. They are legally required, as trustees, to sell to the highest bidder and the house was much better value for money and chain free.
We moved on with only minor losses because we know how to do our own surveys and how to check out title with the Land Registry.

Experience: I sold a house back in 1996, it was in reasonable "original" condition for something nearly 100 years old. I had a dozen potential buyers offering over 650K and asked them informally for their best offers. Three came in close together at near 700K. I accepted the nice people who had also offered just the best price and wrote to the other nine to give them some idea how little they had offered and 'phoned the two who had nearly come out top. One young woman promptly offered another 5K, but I told her I felt it would not be ethical to go back on my word. Unfortunately my chosen buyer was at the top of a chain. At the bottom was a father helping his daughter, who was suddenly told he was likely to die of cancer. That snarled up the chain and I gave the buyer 3 months to get things moving again. At the end of the three months I checked that the young woman had now found something suitable and that the other near miss was still looking. So I told him that if he could match the best original offer it would be his.
Let us call this buyer "smart" as of "smart@rse". He went ahead and paid for a normal building society type mortgage and then sent in his own surveyor at about SIX times the price of the BS surveyor. This man did his bidding and produced a report comparing an Edwardian property to a new build forecasting that it would fall down within the next 10 years. "Smart" wanted 15K off the price.

I phoned the original buyer and said there was other interest in the property but I knew they really wanted to live there and it was time for them to put their money where their mouth was: I would exchange for a deposit of 5% and give them 3 months to complete. If they failed they would loose the 5% BUT I would have no other claim on them. The building is still there and the nice family and the young woman are still happy with their purchases; they should be they have at least doubled in value. "Smart" was as mad as hell but as I explained to him, how can you possibly think you have some kind of agreement when you are offering 15K under the true selling price.

OP there is a way of protecting your interest, though it is a bit late now, that is a put or call option, depending on selling or buying, like everything to do with land it does not come free but it is a written contract, if serious due diligence action/money is at stake; such as the outcome of a planning application.
You have no chance of getting a jury to find you seller guilty. Move on, he has done you a favour, if and when any day now it becomes obvious that house prices are falling.

I would like to know which Police Authority you live in, so I can write to the Chief Constable to ask why his officers are wasting the tax payers money, while there are real fraudsters out there, who need their collars felt.

Here are a few links to real examples of fraud:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=331120

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=332339

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=331106
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=450004

and a bit of Xmas present reading matter (or the library might order it for you):

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/CriminologyandCriminalJustice/?view=usa&

ian_duncan_smith

I recently purchased a property at auction subject to a lease that was supposed to produce an income of £10k a year for the next 10 years. It turned out the lease was a sham, the tenant never even existed, and it was all done to bump up the value of the property.

I would like to say thanks to everyone that has posted on here. Having completed my law degree in 2001 I was not aware of the 2006 Act, and neither my solicitor nor my barrister mentioned it. My mum purchased the property with her life savings and was giving the income as a gift to her grandchildren as a contribution to their school fees and future educational needs.

bgwuser

How awful for you. Hope you can make use of this new legislation. As you will see - maybe you can use it to resolve the matter before you have to go to court.

We have some good news - today we received a cheque from the EA via their solicitor which we are happy to accept. We have learned a lot of this experience and we are glad it is over.

Thank you to all contributors - no matter what your views or ribbing!

John_Pierpoint

ian_duncan_smith wrote: »

I recently purchased a property at auction subject to a lease that was supposed to produce an income of £10k a year for the next 10 years. It turned out the lease was a sham, the tenant never even existed, and it was all done to bump up the value of the property.

Let us know how you get on quoting the new fraud act for what is obviously fraud as any layman would understand it. You may turn up all sorts of fake addresses etc. in your attempt to track down the location of your family's money.

silvercar

bgwuser wrote: »

How awful for you. Hope you can make use of this new legislation. As you will see - maybe you can use it to resolve the matter before you have to go to court.

We have some good news - today we received a cheque from the EA via their solicitor which we are happy to accept. We have learned a lot of this experience and we are glad it is over.

Thank you to all contributors - no matter what your views or ribbing!

Why the EA not the prospective buyer?

dmg24

bgwuser wrote: »

How awful for you. Hope you can make use of this new legislation. As you will see - maybe you can use it to resolve the matter before you have to go to court.

We have some good news - today we received a cheque from the EA via their solicitor which we are happy to accept. We have learned a lot of this experience and we are glad it is over.

Thank you to all contributors - no matter what your views or ribbing!

So are you not going to pursue the case on a point of principle, or were you just in it for the money? :rolleyes: