When and who should inform me of a property defect.

csgohan4

eddddy wrote: »

The EA has a duty to ask.

That's why the NAEA (National Association of Estate Agents) are trialling 'Property Information Questionnaires' - to help EAs to ask all the questions that they should be asking.

The plan is that EAs will ask sellers to fill them in, before they start marketing:
https://www.naea.co.uk/media/1011000/property-information-questionnaire-freehold.pdf
https://www.naea.co.uk/media/1045931/property-information-questionnaire-leasehold.pdf


One specific question is:





I think the law and the property ombudsman's enforcement is going to be tougher and more vigorous than you imagine.

In the following case, an EA was ordered to pay £25,000 compensation, for failing to disclose information about sea defences.

That's not information from any email / paper trail.

See: https://www.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press-releases/case-studies/item/annual-report-omission-of-the-truth-shatters-buyers-dream

But the TPO membership is not mandatory, and as your saying they are 'trailing' questionnaires.


Either way I don't trust EA's and prefer to do my own due diligence

eddddy

csgohan4 wrote: »

But the TPO membership is not mandatory, and as your saying they are 'trailing' questionnaires.


Either way I don't trust EA's and prefer to do my own due diligence

You might be confusing two different things.

This isn't intended to replace the need for a solicitor, surveys etc.

Let's use the OP's sitaution as an example.

• The OP had an offer accepted

• The OP spent, say £2k, on solicitors and surveyors and found out a plan by the freeholders to replace the roof. The OP would have to contribute, say, £6k

• As a result, the OP walked away.

But what should have happened was:

• Before the OP made the offer (or at the time the OP made the offer) the EA should have told the OP about the plan to replace the roof (with a possible cost of £6k).

• The OP would have walk away - but without spending £2k in solicitor's and surveyor's fees.

csgohan4

eddddy wrote: »

You might be confusing two different things.

This isn't intended to replace the need for a solicitor, surveys etc.

Let's use the OP's sitaution as an example.

• The OP had an offer accepted

• The OP spent, say £2k, on solicitors and surveyors and found out a plan by the freeholders to replace the roof. The OP would have to contribute, say, £6k

• As a result, the OP walked away.

But what should have happened was:

• Before the OP made the offer (or at the time the OP made the offer) the EA should have told the OP about the plan to replace the roof (with a possible cost of £6k).

• The OP would have walk away - but without spending £2k in solicitor's and surveyor's fees.

An EA's info is only as good as what the vendor releases.


They are the middlemen, they don't have the intricacies of the lease nor the management pack


While I am not a fan of EA's, they are necessity when buying or selling, but that's where it stops for me. If their lips are moving, their lying.


You can try and rely on the law, but seems ultimately, the vendor is the one who will be responsible.


seems like we will disagree on this one, personal preference

hi123

do not want to hijack the issue but we are in similar situation after finding fire safety and cladding issues after paying for searches etc
subsequently found out that lease holders were informed of the issues in june but let us incur survey and searches cost in july and now claim that they didnt know despite being sent a letter and email
no way to prove that they did read their letter or email??
i am not sure what could they achieve by hiding as mortgaged sale cant go though now
i was hoping that their has to be some duty from estate agent and sellers to be upfront with known issues

eddddy

hi123 wrote: »

i was hoping that their has to be some duty from estate agent and sellers to be upfront with known issues

As explained above, the EA had a duty to disclose 'material information' which they knew or should have known.

I'd guess it's fair to say that, as property professionals, the EA should have known about potential mortgage issues with cladding, and asked the seller questions.

So the Property Ombudsman might decide that the EA should pay you compensation, if you complain.


Here are examples of cases where the Property Ombudsman decided that an EA should have known information and disclosed it to buyers:

• The EA should have known (or should have checked more thoroughly) that a repossessed property was leasehold
  https://www.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press-releases/case-studies/item/freehold-leasehold-or-commonhold-misleading-omission

• The EA should have known that the lack of a dropped kurb meant it was illegal to access a parking space (even though the vendor didn't mention it).
  https://www.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press-releases/case-studies/item/an-undropped-kerb-misleading-action

This whole area of what an EA should have known is worrying EAs a lot:

In a decision that may have repercussions TPO concluded that the agent was, or critically should have been, aware of the development and therefore was in breach of the CPRs in failing to disclose the information. The decision resulted in an award of £1000.

Link: http://etsos.co.uk/case-study-agent-should-have-known-about-local-development-in-cpr-case/