Do estate agents have to tell buyers about previous convictions?

fleurioz

Davesnave said:

eddddy said:

If it's correct that the Estate Agent knew that the seller was a convicted paedophile, then The National Trading Standards Estate  Agency Team suggest that the Estate Agent might have broken the law. .....
If the EA is a member of the Property Ombudsman's scheme, you can make a complaint to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman can make the EA pay compensation, if appropriate.

So, it seems in this case it's now for the OP to say how they know what the EA knew, because the burden of proof will fall on them. Hearsay will most likely be no use.

The estate agent admitted they knew when asked. 

zagubov

fleurioz said:

Davesnave said:

eddddy said:

If it's correct that the Estate Agent knew that the seller was a convicted paedophile, then The National Trading Standards Estate  Agency Team suggest that the Estate Agent might have broken the law. .....
If the EA is a member of the Property Ombudsman's scheme, you can make a complaint to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman can make the EA pay compensation, if appropriate.

So, it seems in this case it's now for the OP to say how they know what the EA knew, because the burden of proof will fall on them. Hearsay will most likely be no use.

The estate agent admitted they knew when asked. 

Is that in writing?

[Deleted User]

fleurioz said:

Davesnave said:

eddddy said:

If it's correct that the Estate Agent knew that the seller was a convicted paedophile, then The National Trading Standards Estate  Agency Team suggest that the Estate Agent might have broken the law. .....
If the EA is a member of the Property Ombudsman's scheme, you can make a complaint to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman can make the EA pay compensation, if appropriate.

So, it seems in this case it's now for the OP to say how they know what the EA knew, because the burden of proof will fall on them. Hearsay will most likely be no use.

The estate agent admitted they knew when asked. 

Fair enough, but the next question is - how did they know?
If they knew because they had a disclosure of the criminal record or is it just some local gossip.

Comms69

Just to point out that is guidance only. (and very poorly worded guidance)

davidmcn

eddddy said:

 Some relevant extracts from Trading Standards Website (check the website for the full text) - 
"Notable events at the property or unusual features (recent suicide/murder, vendor is convicted paedophile)"

That seems to focus on there being some notoriety about the property itself (e.g. because offences took place there), which isn't clear from the OP.

Davesnave

fleurioz said:

Davesnave said:

eddddy said:

If it's correct that the Estate Agent knew that the seller was a convicted paedophile, then The National Trading Standards Estate  Agency Team suggest that the Estate Agent might have broken the law. .....
If the EA is a member of the Property Ombudsman's scheme, you can make a complaint to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman can make the EA pay compensation, if appropriate.

So, it seems in this case it's now for the OP to say how they know what the EA knew, because the burden of proof will fall on them. Hearsay will most likely be no use.

The estate agent admitted they knew when asked. 

That's fine, if they keep on admitting it!

When I teased our solicitor about failing to alert us, she replied, " I didn't realise it was that Mr Smith, (not Smith, but a fairly common name) ... after all, the case was some time ago."

I had to accept her word, even though this was a reasonably high profile case in a less populous local community, not a city.

I appreciate the vendor's agent is in a different position from my solicitor, but it may still be possible for them to plausibly deny something like this, though one would hope they'd hold their hands up, having admitted knowledge.

steampowered

Personally, I do not think this is a matter which "affects" the property. So I don't think there is an obligation on the estate agent to disclose it.

You are buying the property, you aren't buying the seller. It would only become a matter affecting the property if it led to other issues that do need to be disclosed - e.g. neighbour disputes.

eddddy

Davesnave said:

eddddy said:

If it's correct that the Estate Agent knew that the seller was a convicted paedophile, then The National Trading Standards Estate  Agency Team suggest that the Estate Agent might have broken the law. .....
If the EA is a member of the Property Ombudsman's scheme, you can make a complaint to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman can make the EA pay compensation, if appropriate.

So, it seems in this case it's now for the OP to say how they know what the EA knew, because the burden of proof will fall on them. Hearsay will most likely be no use.

Yep - it's definitely a very, very difficult area.

I can't find any past Ombudsman decisions on this, so it's hard to know what level of proof the Ombudsman would look for.

But the Property Ombudsman says:

7k.
For all properties, material information would include, but is not limited to the following; 
- Details of any unusual restrictions or covenants affecting the use and enjoyment of the property.

You must take all reasonable precautions and exercise all due diligence by asking the seller to declare such information in writing (see paragraph 4e and/or via the completion of a property information questionnaire signed by the seller). Where you have doubt or information is missing you should ask further relevant questions of the seller. If all reasonable enquiries with the seller have been carried out and certain information is still unavailable, the fact that the information is unknown should be clearly disclosed to buyers, to enable them to make an informed transactional decision.

Link: https://www.tpos.co.uk/images/Codes_2019_a5/TPOE27-8_Code_of_Practice_for_Residential_Estate_Agents_A5_-_Effective_1_June_2019.pdf

 And since Trading Standards has specifically said that a paedophile conviction is material information, perhaps EAs should routinely ask that question - probably on their 'Property Information Questionnaire'. Obviously, there's the possibility that the seller will lie.

But even then, if the EA has doubts (e.g. because of rumours), the EA is required to ask further relevant questions, and make 'reasonable enquiries'. Maybe reasonable enquiries would include googling the seller's name, for example.

As I say, it's very difficult. The goal of the rules (and the legislation) is good - it's to stop EAs hiding important information, by not asking the seller, and/or by pretending they didn't know about it. But it has some grey areas.

eddddy

davidmcn said:

eddddy said:

 Some relevant extracts from Trading Standards Website (check the website for the full text) - 
"Notable events at the property or unusual features (recent suicide/murder, vendor is convicted paedophile)"

That seems to focus on there being some notoriety about the property itself (e.g. because offences took place there), which isn't clear from the OP.

The relevant legislation says:

Misleading omissions

6.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—

(a) the commercial practice omits material information,
(b) the commercial practice hides material information,
(c) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or
(d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context,

and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.
Link: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/regulation/6/made

So that doesn't seem to restrict it to information about the property itself - in this case it seems to be any information that would make an 'average consumer' decide not to buy the property.

Obviously, in this case, it depends on the precise facts.... 

[Deleted User]

swaledale_one said:

If you have a dispute with any neighbours by law you have to disclose this to a potential buyer yet the above doesn't apply??? I'd assume by law the solicitor should have disclosed this as the potential buyers lives could be put at risk and the obvious point is it's  far far far more serious than a neighbour dispute which has to be disclosed.

This was settled in court years ago. A family found that the house they bought was the site of multiple murders with the bodies buried in the back garden and not all the parts found. They moved out immediately and sold at considerably below market value. They sued then and lost.

So given that human body parts in the garden wasn't enough to warrant being disclosed you aren't likely to get very far over paedophilia.

What do you want exactly? To sell the house or get some compensation for something?