Fraud Act 2006 and Vendors who pull out

Catblue

The cheque came from the Estate Agent's solicitor?

Or from the vendor's solicitor?

A_Nice_Englishman

I read it as the money comimg from the estate agent. Now I'm dying to know what the estate agent did wrong to justify paying out!

For reference, here is the Ombudsman for Estate Agents Code of Practice which says what they should (and shouldn't) do

John_Pierpoint

As someone said on here, you live and learn.

Some times in business you have to bite the bullet, it is not a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of profit and loss.

Perhaps the Estate Agent's solicitor has said "Oh new law, you don't want to get involved in this, how much do you want to spend on this in time and money? My advice to you is "give him his money back and move on".

I once found myself with a potential land dispute over a right of way and that is what my solicitor said to me (It now takes me 3 minutes longer to walk to the nearest pub) But it was the correct advice because in the years since someone else ran up against the same right of way issue but pressed ahead.
One side won, it was touch and go and they did not win completely in that they have to live with conditions that the owner of the land can impose on the right of way BUT it took about 9 months out of their life preparing evidence and worrying what they would do if they lost. It ended up in court and cost the looser 80K. Champagne celebration at the "wig & pen" club?
English law encourages compromise perhaps better know as fudge and humbug.

I congratulate the OP on what in Essex is called "A Result" but I'm feeling generous having had a minor victory in my Identity Fraud hassle yesterday.

Debt_Free_Chick

Is it just me

Or does anyone else have this tiny, nagging feeling that this was a troll?

RabbitMad

I did wonder this. However relieved my boredom for a few hours so I'm not too bothered.

silvercar

I certainly felt we weren't getting even half the story.

The fact that the EA supposedly coughed up rather than the seller just weakened the whole story.

hearts

silvercar wrote: »

I certainly felt we weren't getting even half the story.

The fact that the EA supposedly coughed up rather than the seller just weakened the whole story.

EXACTLY. What a load of tosh. An EA holding his hands up and giving away free money.....lol A likely story, and especially so quick.

bgwuser

So funny to give a result and watch the reaction - a little ribbing on my part back to you. As it happens we had the EA under S4 of the Fraud Act. The vendor was the problem under S2 - hence my query to this forum. It appears that they (EA and vendor) got their heads together, after we sent them both letters outling the evidence we had against them, and reacted positively to our request that they share our costs. A good result for all concerned and no doubt lessons have been learned by ALL of us.

A_Nice_Englishman

This is a fascinating thread.

Section 4 of the Fraud Act reads

4 Fraud by abuse of position
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act
against, the financial interests of another person,
(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and
(c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his
conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.

So what did the estate agent do (or omit to do) and how did the OP show dishonesty and intent on his part?

real1314

The EA may have been exoposed if they had not taken reasonable steps to confirm that when THEY told the buyer that the PP had been applied for, it was actually true.

who knows for sure, but it's been a common complaint that vendors can pull out post-survey and leave people out of pocket. Someone comes along with a possible recourse and lots of pepole say "it's the way it is".

if the issue were addressed, EAs would have fewer houses on their books, especially the people who are just floating their property to see if they really can get that dream price? (the really high prices that make others look like bargains?)
maybe the EA has taken the view (much like the banks on charges for some time) that they don't really want to know how the law will see it?