Survey and vendor changing locks/keys

TheJP

doodling said:

Hi,

From the point of view of the original poster, the HA and the EA are the same person (who I'll call the vendor) What appears to have happened is that the vendor has agreed to make the property available to the surveyor at a particular time and have failed to do so.

The next question is what was the agreement about making the property available and what is the contractual context around that?  Unless the original poster agreed to pay for access then it is not clear that there is any contract at all under which losses could be claimed (as we are still at the surveying stage then the overall purchase contract will not be relevant unless this was something like an auction sale).

If the vendor cannot be pursued then there is no legal avenue to get any money back.

Having said that, both the EA and HA should recognise that they have cost you money and might be prepared to make some kind of goodwill payment - I wouldn't bank on it though.

But they aren't...

The buyer is dealing with the EA, if the EA didn't check with the HA that all was ok to enter the property to carry out a survey then that's sloppy. An EA wouldn't arrange a survey in a residential property without clearing it with the owner first so why is this any different (assuming the EA didn't check first).

There is no contractual context for the buyer yet as they haven't exchanged contracts, the contract to sell is with the EA and the HA.

Again the pitfalls of buying, if the sale falls through from the buyer should they then compensate the EA and HA?

eddddy

Somebody messed up. It was probably somebody at the HA - but it could be the EA.

I don't think it's any kind of specific systemic problem such as "HAs regularly change locks, resulting in surveyors regularly being unable to access properties".

But maybe it's fair to say something like "HAs can sometimes be a bit disorganised and overstretched, which might result in mistakes and delays when trying to buy from them."

I guess you just have to accept that.

doodling

Hi,

TheJP said:

doodling said:

Hi,

From the point of view of the original poster, the HA and the EA are the same person (who I'll call the vendor) What appears to have happened is that the vendor has agreed to make the property available to the surveyor at a particular time and have failed to do so.

The next question is what was the agreement about making the property available and what is the contractual context around that?  Unless the original poster agreed to pay for access then it is not clear that there is any contract at all under which losses could be claimed (as we are still at the surveying stage then the overall purchase contract will not be relevant unless this was something like an auction sale).

If the vendor cannot be pursued then there is no legal avenue to get any money back.

Having said that, both the EA and HA should recognise that they have cost you money and might be prepared to make some kind of goodwill payment - I wouldn't bank on it though.

But they aren't...

From the point of view of the buyer the EA and HA are the same person.  One is the other's agent with respect to the sale of that house so the buyer can deal with either of them pretty much interchangeably (subject to the extent to which the EA or HA want to be involved) and any buck there might be stops with the HA (who the EA works for).

The buyer is dealing with the EA, if the EA didn't check with the HA that all was ok to enter the property to carry out a survey then that's sloppy. An EA wouldn't arrange a survey in a residential property without clearing it with the owner first so why is this any different (assuming the EA didn't check first).

The buyer is dealing with the vendor who in this instance consists of the HA and their agent.  I'm not saying that this is any different to any other house sale, I'm saying that from the legal point of view of the buyer the EA and HA are indivisible.

There is no contractual context for the buyer yet as they haven't exchanged contracts, the contract to sell is with the EA and the HA.

Again the pitfalls of buying, if the sale falls through from the buyer should they then compensate the EA and HA?

I think you're missing the point; because there is no contract then sellers or their agents can do stuff like forget to allow access for surveyors (or allow access and then decide not to sell) with complete impunity, other then the effect on the relationship between them and the buyer - which side that matters to most depends on the nature of the market.  I make no comment on whether that is a good or bad thing.

As I noted in my post, the only chance the OP has of seeing any money is by appealing to the EAs or HAs sense of fairness.  I don't rate that chance highly.

TheJP

doodling said:

Hi,

TheJP said:

doodling said:

Hi,

From the point of view of the original poster, the HA and the EA are the same person (who I'll call the vendor) What appears to have happened is that the vendor has agreed to make the property available to the surveyor at a particular time and have failed to do so.

The next question is what was the agreement about making the property available and what is the contractual context around that?  Unless the original poster agreed to pay for access then it is not clear that there is any contract at all under which losses could be claimed (as we are still at the surveying stage then the overall purchase contract will not be relevant unless this was something like an auction sale).

If the vendor cannot be pursued then there is no legal avenue to get any money back.

Having said that, both the EA and HA should recognise that they have cost you money and might be prepared to make some kind of goodwill payment - I wouldn't bank on it though.

But they aren't...

From the point of view of the buyer the EA and HA are the same person.  One is the other's agent with respect to the sale of that house so the buyer can deal with either of them pretty much interchangeably (subject to the extent to which the EA or HA want to be involved) and any buck there might be stops with the HA (who the EA works for).

The buyer is dealing with the EA, if the EA didn't check with the HA that all was ok to enter the property to carry out a survey then that's sloppy. An EA wouldn't arrange a survey in a residential property without clearing it with the owner first so why is this any different (assuming the EA didn't check first).

The buyer is dealing with the vendor who in this instance consists of the HA and their agent.  I'm not saying that this is any different to any other house sale, I'm saying that from the legal point of view of the buyer the EA and HA are indivisible.

There is no contractual context for the buyer yet as they haven't exchanged contracts, the contract to sell is with the EA and the HA.

Again the pitfalls of buying, if the sale falls through from the buyer should they then compensate the EA and HA?

I think you're missing the point; because there is no contract then sellers or their agents can do stuff like forget to allow access for surveyors (or allow access and then decide not to sell) with complete impunity, other then the effect on the relationship between them and the buyer - which side that matters to most depends on the nature of the market.  I make no comment on whether that is a good or bad thing.

As I noted in my post, the only chance the OP has of seeing any money is by appealing to the EAs or HAs sense of fairness.  I don't rate that chance highly.

You've over complicated the basics of there was a mis-communication between the EA & HA. The HA is not like you or me selling a property, they will have different departments doing different things relating to the property. We all know the Ar*se doesn't talk to the elbow in these public organisations, the EA should know that this sale will be more complex than a normal residential property and should have checked that access for a survey is ok, similarly the HA could have notified the EA (again ar*e & elbow).

Again a business is not going to refund/pay out to someone they have no contract or business with. It sucks but its the lay of the land.

JohnBravo

Norman_Castle said:

JohnBravo said:

Slinky said:

user1977 said:

Surveyor charging £200 for not doing a survey is taking the pee somewhat.

If it's half a day, or a day's work, depending on the size of the property, why should the surveyor lose out what s/he would have earned? It's not like s/he could rock up somewhere else and survey another property without an appointment.

I don't know how this could be avoided thought.

The agency thinks it has the right keys, it's kind of hard to double check if the keys are correct if the vendor is a housing association with hundreds of keys.

The agency has just came back that the vendor uses a master key across all their properties and eventually changed to independent keys.

Its easy for the agency to check if the keys they have work, they visit the property and try them. I wouldn't believe stories about master keys.

Do you mean they have given the surveyor the wrong keys?

I was viewing the property in February and one of their "viewings" agents was there with the keys not the vendor.

It could be the master key story is just to move the blame onto "natural causes".

Marvel1

user1977 said:

Surveyor charging £200 for not doing a survey is taking the pee somewhat.

Could be a discount of the full fee and could have filled the spot with another booking at full fee.

Norman_Castle

JohnBravo said:

Norman_Castle said:

JohnBravo said:

Slinky said:

user1977 said:

Surveyor charging £200 for not doing a survey is taking the pee somewhat.

If it's half a day, or a day's work, depending on the size of the property, why should the surveyor lose out what s/he would have earned? It's not like s/he could rock up somewhere else and survey another property without an appointment.

I don't know how this could be avoided thought.

The agency thinks it has the right keys, it's kind of hard to double check if the keys are correct if the vendor is a housing association with hundreds of keys.

The agency has just came back that the vendor uses a master key across all their properties and eventually changed to independent keys.

Its easy for the agency to check if the keys they have work, they visit the property and try them. I wouldn't believe stories about master keys.

Do you mean they have given the surveyor the wrong keys?

I was viewing the property in February and one of their "viewings" agents was there with the keys not the vendor.

It could be the master key story is just to move the blame onto "natural causes".

The master key story is there to deny blame and responsibility. It is possible the EA handed over the wrong keys but as demonstrated unlikely they will admit it. Its also possible the keys handed over to them were wrong or locks were changed afterwards. If the EA are managing the sale and taking responsibility for viewings they should have the right keys. Before arranging any more visits ask them to ensure the keys they have work.

JohnBravo

Marvel1 said:

user1977 said:

Surveyor charging £200 for not doing a survey is taking the pee somewhat.

Could be a discount of the full fee and could have filled the spot with another booking at full fee.

Interesting because this was one of the thoughts that went through my mind but I dismissed it early on.

That would indicate the surveyor is cheating and this way is compensating for a competitive price he sets comparing to other surveyors. This can be the case considering the EA has few branches and the surveyor can talk to a number of people and take advantage of the chaos. If the agency does not keep track of what keys have been given to whom and when it's very hard if not impossible to prove.
But would you be driving 1.5h one way just to pretend you have done some work?

It can be the EA sorts itself out and gives surveyor the same keys and they will work this time.

Let's play Sherlock for a bit more, shall we?

Nah. The EA has just confirmed the HA is bringing the new keys tomorrow so it must be them changing the locks in the meantime or maybe they bring the same keys? LOL

Ath_Wat

Norman_Castle said:

JohnBravo said:

Norman_Castle said:

JohnBravo said:

Slinky said:

user1977 said:

Surveyor charging £200 for not doing a survey is taking the pee somewhat.

If it's half a day, or a day's work, depending on the size of the property, why should the surveyor lose out what s/he would have earned? It's not like s/he could rock up somewhere else and survey another property without an appointment.

I don't know how this could be avoided thought.

The agency thinks it has the right keys, it's kind of hard to double check if the keys are correct if the vendor is a housing association with hundreds of keys.

The agency has just came back that the vendor uses a master key across all their properties and eventually changed to independent keys.

Its easy for the agency to check if the keys they have work, they visit the property and try them. I wouldn't believe stories about master keys.

Do you mean they have given the surveyor the wrong keys?

I was viewing the property in February and one of their "viewings" agents was there with the keys not the vendor.

It could be the master key story is just to move the blame onto "natural causes".

The master key story is there to deny blame and responsibility. It is possible the EA handed over the wrong keys but as demonstrated unlikely they will admit it. Its also possible the keys handed over to them were wrong or locks were changed afterwards. If the EA are managing the sale and taking responsibility for viewings they should have the right keys. Before arranging any more visits ask them to ensure the keys they have work.

The EA had the right keys and had used them before.

The vendor changed the locks and didn't tell them.

How is the EA supposed to know this?

Ath_Wat

TheJP said:

doodling said:

Hi,

TheJP said:

doodling said:

Hi,

From the point of view of the original poster, the HA and the EA are the same person (who I'll call the vendor) What appears to have happened is that the vendor has agreed to make the property available to the surveyor at a particular time and have failed to do so.

The next question is what was the agreement about making the property available and what is the contractual context around that?  Unless the original poster agreed to pay for access then it is not clear that there is any contract at all under which losses could be claimed (as we are still at the surveying stage then the overall purchase contract will not be relevant unless this was something like an auction sale).

If the vendor cannot be pursued then there is no legal avenue to get any money back.

Having said that, both the EA and HA should recognise that they have cost you money and might be prepared to make some kind of goodwill payment - I wouldn't bank on it though.

But they aren't...

From the point of view of the buyer the EA and HA are the same person.  One is the other's agent with respect to the sale of that house so the buyer can deal with either of them pretty much interchangeably (subject to the extent to which the EA or HA want to be involved) and any buck there might be stops with the HA (who the EA works for).

The buyer is dealing with the EA, if the EA didn't check with the HA that all was ok to enter the property to carry out a survey then that's sloppy. An EA wouldn't arrange a survey in a residential property without clearing it with the owner first so why is this any different (assuming the EA didn't check first).

The buyer is dealing with the vendor who in this instance consists of the HA and their agent.  I'm not saying that this is any different to any other house sale, I'm saying that from the legal point of view of the buyer the EA and HA are indivisible.

There is no contractual context for the buyer yet as they haven't exchanged contracts, the contract to sell is with the EA and the HA.

Again the pitfalls of buying, if the sale falls through from the buyer should they then compensate the EA and HA?

I think you're missing the point; because there is no contract then sellers or their agents can do stuff like forget to allow access for surveyors (or allow access and then decide not to sell) with complete impunity, other then the effect on the relationship between them and the buyer - which side that matters to most depends on the nature of the market.  I make no comment on whether that is a good or bad thing.

As I noted in my post, the only chance the OP has of seeing any money is by appealing to the EAs or HAs sense of fairness.  I don't rate that chance highly.

You've over complicated the basics of there was a mis-communication between the EA & HA. The HA is not like you or me selling a property, they will have different departments doing different things relating to the property. We all know the Ar*se doesn't talk to the elbow in these public organisations, the EA should know that this sale will be more complex than a normal residential property and should have checked that access for a survey is ok, similarly the HA could have notified the EA (again ar*e & elbow).

Again a business is not going to refund/pay out to someone they have no contract or business with. It sucks but its the lay of the land.

When a  vendor gives keys to an estate agent that is generally an agreement that it's ok for the estate agent to go to the house at any time (for the purpose of furthering the sale, of course).  Nobody would then expect an estate agent to check every time they do so if it is still ok.  The whole point of giving them the keys is so the vendor doesn't need to be bothered with it.