Compensation advice - was sold the wrong property

Krissie_Fortune

Thanks to you all the replied, I can't say I am surprised at your answers (And hope this comment is visible to you all, sorry, am useless at forums!).



It's not looking good, but have never heard of anything like this happening before, appreciate that my mum didn't exactly handle the purchase as most of us would, but that being said the EA have been scummy. At best I had hoped maybe there would be a misrepresentation claim, seeing as the EA hadn't seen the property, couldn't verify the pictures they are using for sales purposes are correct, yet spoke about the place in great depth to try and push the sale.

I have tried a few solicitors who want to charge £200-300 for an initial case-review type consultation and that is before knowing whether they will even take the case.

There was a no-win-no-fee type that seemed keen, but upon reading all the smallprint there were still risks involved and insurances to take out that would have amounted to a few grand.



Might just have to write this one off as there are so many things that should be done by the buyer too, even if the agent didn't do their job properly, but it's an awful amount to lose so was hoping one of you may have had a miracle loop hole or something!

getmore4less

ProDave wrote: »

Where in the UK can you buy a property, even a derelict one, for £25K? And the lucky second buyer got it for £13K then?

Try this rightmove search

Slithery

Krissie_Fortune wrote: »

...but that being said the EA have been scummy...

The EA has done absolutely nothing wrong here, don't try to offload the blame onto an innocent party.

Krissie_Fortune wrote: »

At best I had hoped maybe there would be a misrepresentation claim, seeing as the EA hadn't seen the property, couldn't verify the pictures they are using for sales purposes are correct, yet spoke about the place in great depth to try and push the sale.

All irrelevant unfortunately.

The property details that the EA gave your mother will have come with a disclaimer stating that they aren't responsible for any misinformation and that the buyer should make all of their own enquiries.

It's standard procedure in all UK property purchases.

Doozergirl

Slithery wrote: »

The EA has done absolutely nothing wrong here, don't try to offload the blame onto an innocent party.



All irrelevant unfortunately.

The property details that the EA gave your mother will have come with a disclaimer stating that they aren't responsible for any misinformation and that the buyer should make all of their own enquiries.

It's standard procedure in all UK property purchases.

Given that the OP's mother went to the Ombudsman and they found in her favour (albeit awarding limited compensation) it shows that the EA did do something wrong. A disclaimer is written to put people off protesting, it doesn't reduce their liability to zero.

The lack of any due diligence at all puts most of the responsibility squarely at the feet of the buyer, but the agent does not cover themselves in glory here. We do have slightly higher expectations of estate agents in this country than marketing entirely the wrong property. There are some 'agents' out there working purely to dupe the more naive investor into buying the dregs of our housing stock, and just relying on people to trust them.

martindow

I can't really believe that the EA had no idea of the condition of a house they are selling. It seems highly unlikely that they didn't look at the house to measure rooms and create their listing.

Are there agents who will just accept a pile of photos and put a house which may not even exist up for sale?

csgohan4

martindow wrote: »

I can't really believe that the EA had no idea of the condition of a house they are selling. It seems highly unlikely that they didn't look at the house to measure rooms and create their listing.

Are there agents who will just accept a pile of photos and put a house which may not even exist up for sale?

Doesn't really matter to be honest, it's the buyer who has to apply due to diligence and if the buyer sues, one of the first question a judge will ask is did you see the property, did you have a survey done?

an EA can only go on information a seller provides, classic example being a free hold property, when actually it's a leasehold or only 80 years on leasehold when advertised as 125 years.

jonnygee2

Forget the EA, they aren't liable for the house price loss. The ombudsman's verdict is correct - they should have done more and have probably acted improperly, but for this they are liable to pay a small amount of compensation.

Have you looked at the documents of the sale? E.g. fixtures and fittings forms - can you detect any deliberate attempt to mislead about the property she was buying in those (e.g. forms clearly filled out for a different property?). I think if there was, you might be able to take this back to the seller and it'd be worth the consultation with the solicitor, but the evidence would have to be substantial.

phill99

So your Mother undertook absolutely NO due diligence whatsoever. She didn't look at the place, didn't ask any one to look at it for her, no survey, nothing?


And now she wants to blame someone else for her inactions?


Sorry, but your Mother needs to have a serious word with herself.

AdrianC

martindow wrote: »

I can't really believe that the EA had no idea of the condition of a house they are selling. It seems highly unlikely that they didn't look at the house to measure rooms and create their listing.

Are there agents who will just accept a pile of photos and put a house which may not even exist up for sale?

The house cost £25k.

How much was the EA being paid to sell it?

davidmcn

AdrianC wrote: »

The house cost £25k.

How much was the EA being paid to sell it?

Indeed, if it's a cheap house then one would expect the seller to be seeking a cheap marketing fee. If the seller offers to produce the description and already has photos on file, why would the EA need to visit? It's not compulsory.