Seller lied to estate agent and myself can I claim costs?

eddddy

S66PAL wrote: »

Hi yes sorry maybe I didn’t make myself clear. Yes the 5 freeholders previously appointed the managing agent. The seller told the estate agent that the building was self managed and no management company involved. It is a converted house not a block of flats. Most of the huge Victorian properties here are split into flats. It’s a personal preference that I buy a self managed property so advise on that is not what I’m asking here. I’m asking if I could go after either the seller or estate agent for my fees, as on the very first viewing I reiterated I didn’t not want a managed property. You would be pushed to find a solicitor to conveyancing for less than 4K on the south coast. My fees included a £600 homebuyers survey. Again it’s just advice on how I could proceed I’m after, thanks.

The problem is that your posts sound a little illogical and confused, so perhaps the EA was confused by your questions and/or you were confused by the EA's answer.


But anyway... if the EA told you something which they knew was incorrect, or they should have know was incorrect, you can potentially complain to the Property Ombudsman.

The Property Ombudsman has the power to order the EA to pay you compensation.

(But I wouldn't hold out too much hope in this instance.)

silvercar

Even if there was no management agent at the moment, the other 4 free holders could vote to appoint one the day you moved in.

da_rule

The problem you are also going to have is that it could be quite reasonable for the seller to say that the property is self-managed (as they appoint and direct the company) and for the EA to have interpreted this as meaning there is no agent.

In any case, in order to bring a claim you'd need to prove that the misrepresentation was either fraudulent or negligent. Also, your reliance on it and the loss you suffer would have to be foreseeable.

Mutton_Geoff

S66PAL wrote: »

Hi All!

A couple of months ago I had an offer accepted on a flat. The estate agent was advised by the seller that the property was self managed by the 5 freeholders who live there, and maintenance was done as and when needed. After the survey was done and searches were started by my solicitor , I find that there is a management company involved. There is a monthly charge of £120. I reiterated to the estate agent from day 1 I didnt want a property with a management company as I have had a bad experience in the past. I have had to pull out of the sale and would never have offered if I had known. I’ve contacted the estate agents who say the seller told them
It was self Managed so they cannot be held to blame. My costs are over £2000. Is there anything I can do?:p:cool:

If the issue was so important to you, might it be worth carrying out due diligence on this aspect early on in the purchase to avoid racking up £2,000 in costs beforehand?


Any costs in buying are at risk until you exchange contracts and should be viewed as part and parcel of analysing whether the purchase is suitable for you. In this case, something has come to light that concerns you. Is it worth more investigation on the set up before you pull out?

patman99

DoaM wrote: »

£120 per month is £1,440 per year. I'd imagine that £240 of that is management fees and the rest is the sinking fund contribution.

The usual agents fee is 12.5%.


Not all management companies are con merchants. If ou know the name of the management company, then google them for reviews.


The reason ManCo's are used is that they are able to get better deals on things like communal electricity bills, gardening, window cleaning and insurance becuase they get discounts from the suppliers due to the amuont of sites they manage.

S66PAL

Thankyou for those who have posted advice without judgement. Not all management companies are con merchants, I get that but like I said I just wanted advice on how to proceed. In my previous property even though I was a freeholder, I had no say how the money was spent, as 2 chairman had been appointed to make these decisions, and the other freeholders rented their flats out so just paid the money with no questions asked. I Couldnt even pick a paint colour! There were 20% finders fees and even if I found them myself we still paid these fees. On EVERY single occasion, the quotes I got personally were WAY cheaper than the management co ones. There were company solicitors to pay too. The fees were a joke. This is a common occurrence where I live as most properties are Victorian conversions. This new property had very zero money in the fund either. Anyway just thought I would ask the question. Shot down in my first post...cheers.

bouicca21

TBH that’s a bit like saying I don’t like the service in my local supermarket so I’ll never use another supermarket. The nitty gritty is surely that you need to find out how that particular Manco is run - whether there is active involvement and scrutiny or not.

By comparison I offer you the example of a friend whose building is share of freehold. She and her neighbours are all active in running the place - but they are clueless. Result higher expenses, failure to collect ground rent and service charges from a difficult resident ...

It’s down to the people involved, not whether there is or is not a manco.

DoaM

Not all management companies are con merchants. If ou know the name of the management company, then google them for reviews.

Not sure how you resolved that from what I posted ... I simply gave a (simple, off the top of my head) example to show that not all of the £120 was going to the ManCo. And £20 / £120 is 16.67% anyway so not a million miles from 12.5%.

(Sorry - quoting's not working properly for me at the moment).

haras_nosirrah

A lot of lenders don't like freehold flats and require those that do to have a management company in place so that a dispute over a repair bill doesn't lead to the building not being maintained.

eddddy

haras_nosirrah wrote: »

A lot of lenders don't like freehold flats...

Don't confuse people with that kind of comment.

As a mortgage adviser, you should know that when somebody says "share of freehold" they don't mean a freehold flat.