Mislead by estate agent

Josh3799

So we went to view a house and the house was down as a freehold on the document we were given aswell as the estate agent website and right move. We wanted a freehold as we have saved enough and wanted the house to completely be are own .Wasn’t until we have spent a lot of money on the mortgate the solicitor fees and a survey. Now we found out that the house is a lease hold who is in the wrong and are we able to get are money back if so how.

Davesnave

No, the agent is not responsible for checking the legal information given to them by the vendor. That's why you employ a solicitor to find out matters like this.


Buying a house means taking risks with your money and walking away if things are revealed that you don't like. These are the rules by which everyone plays in England & Wales. If you are in Scotland things are done differently.

lisyloo

Is this something you could check on the land registry for £3 yourself next time?

need_an_answer

OK so the property is leasehold,that can mean lots of different things from some of the horror stories you read online right down to a peppercorn rent payable once in a blue moon!

Before you make any rash decisions read your lease to find out what it entails.

Lots of people live quite happily in their own homes albeit leasehold for many years without much compromise.

read exactly what your lease is before you go any further,you may find that actually you still love the property and are prepared to continue with the purchase without trying to apportion blame to the agent or the vendor.

teneighty

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this. The newish Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 seems to place far more onerous requirements on the estate agents to actually check crucial information and if necessary seek written proof from the vendor.

Tenure is one of the specific examples cited suggesting that the estate agent should check with the Land Registry if the vendor is unable to provide written confirmation.

It might be worth having a word with Trading Standards.

maninthestreet

The property has been mis-described. If it is so easy to check this, why didn't the EA do it?

HampshireH

Tenure is one of the specific examples cited suggesting that the estate agent should check with the Land Registry if the vendor is unable to provide written confirmation.

It might be worth having a word with Trading Standards.

Most estate agents add a disclaimer to the bottom of their adverts stating the information is correct to the best of their knowledge based on what information they have received.

This isn't a trading standards issue. It appears to be an error. The OP could quite easily have checked with the Land Registry if they had wanted to before spending any money.

I looked to buy a beautiful property advertised as freehold. I googled it and turned out to be parish council owned shared ownership with no chance of a 100% staircase. The agents had no idea but covered themselves just incase because they had a disclaimer

RedFraggle

maninthestreet wrote: »

The property has been mis-described. If it is so easy to check this, why didn't the EA do it?

It isn't their job to.

eddddy

In what sounds like a similar case, the the Property Ombudsman ruled that the EA must pay the buyer £1300 compensation:

The buyer in this case explained that they told the agent that they wanted to purchase a freehold property. The sales particulars for the property that they intended to purchase did not state the tenure.

The agent said that it was not their role to ascertain this information; indeed they said that they did not ask any tenure questions about properties they marketed...

The Ombudsman expects an agent to ask questions about the property on various matters, one of which is tenure...

The buyer was entitled to be provided with full and correct information at the outset but in this case she was not. Without the full information, the buyer made a different ‘transactional decision’ to that which she would have done...

The complaint was supported. The Ombudsman directed the agent to refund the buyer’s survey and legal fees, of £1,100 and made an additional award of £200 for the aggravation caused by this matter....

Link: https://www.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press-releases/case-studies/item/annual-report-freehold-vs-leasehold

If the EA is a member of The Property Ombudsman scheme, it's probably worth pointing them towards this article, and maybe considering a complaint to them.

davidmcn

Davesnave wrote: »

Buying a house means taking risks with your money and walking away if things are revealed that you don't like. These are the rules by which everyone plays in England & Wales. If you are in Scotland things are done differently.

It's much the same principle in Scotland, other than we don't have anything as ridiculous as leasehold residential properties.

G_M

lisyloo wrote: »

Is this something you could check on the land registry for £3 yourself next time?

Yes. When I'm buying, I always purchase this (and the Plan - another £3!) before even putting in an offer. Like doing a property viewing and checking out the area, it's part of the decision-making process!

The property has been mis-described. If it is so easy to check this, why didn't the EA do it?

Agents are not legally qualified. There are things in the title that might need legal interpretation so agents simply do not look. If they did, then they would become liable for any errors.


edit: just read edddy's post above. I'm surprised.


So if a buyer mentions to an agent that they are considering adding an extension on to the property, the agent now has to read the Title and look for, and interpret, any covenants that might prohibit this? And I suppose check if the property is listed or in a Conservation Area? How far down the legal investigation does an agent now need to go........?


This could put allconveyancers out of business (though they'd soon get new jobs working for estate agents who'd need them to check Titles before marketing could commence.........!)