Help, restricted covenant, title cannot be transferred

housebuyer143

GDB2222 said:

MobileSaver said:

Faddi777 said:

Im still  convinced that estate agent is equally responsible for this a
-On the basis that they failed to disclosed key information.

Do you have evidence that the EA was aware of key information that they failed to disclose? (I'm thinking that maybe you do since I'd be surprised otherwise that the PRS found in your favour.)

Faddi777 said:

not carrying out reasonable checks which an everage consumer should know or expect estate agent to be aware of .

Assuming you are referring to the restrictive covenant being missed as being a "reasonable check", that's (currently) the solicitor's responsibility and not the EA's responsibility (unless they had previously been made aware of it). There has been talk of making it a legal requirement for EAs to actively check and disclose such information but as far as I know that is not yet in legislation.

Faddi777 said:

I have lost contact with my solicitor who solely blamed all on seller's solicitor for this in his last email.

I suggested last week that this might be the case; if the seller's solicitor gave undertakings that the restrictions would be complied with then they are probably the ones at fault, not your solicitor.
However you don't know who asked or undertook what which is why as advised you need to immediately start the formal complaint process.

If the seller's solicitor gave undertakings that they have not complied with, I’d expect the buyer’s solicitor to be all over this. The SRA will enforce compliance with undertakings if necessary. 

Besides that, if the requirement was to sell at a 50% discount but the price was 100%, that cannot be corrected by the seller's solicitor, anyway. 

And we still have not heard from the op whether he complied with the requirements to be eligible for the 50% discount. 

The OP says that they paid full price, so restrictions not complied with. The only way to realistically comply with it is to refund the OP 50% of purchase price.

GDB2222

housebuyer143 said:

GDB2222 said:

MobileSaver said:

Faddi777 said:

Im still  convinced that estate agent is equally responsible for this a
-On the basis that they failed to disclosed key information.

Do you have evidence that the EA was aware of key information that they failed to disclose? (I'm thinking that maybe you do since I'd be surprised otherwise that the PRS found in your favour.)

Faddi777 said:

not carrying out reasonable checks which an everage consumer should know or expect estate agent to be aware of .

Assuming you are referring to the restrictive covenant being missed as being a "reasonable check", that's (currently) the solicitor's responsibility and not the EA's responsibility (unless they had previously been made aware of it). There has been talk of making it a legal requirement for EAs to actively check and disclose such information but as far as I know that is not yet in legislation.

Faddi777 said:

I have lost contact with my solicitor who solely blamed all on seller's solicitor for this in his last email.

I suggested last week that this might be the case; if the seller's solicitor gave undertakings that the restrictions would be complied with then they are probably the ones at fault, not your solicitor.
However you don't know who asked or undertook what which is why as advised you need to immediately start the formal complaint process.

If the seller's solicitor gave undertakings that they have not complied with, I’d expect the buyer’s solicitor to be all over this. The SRA will enforce compliance with undertakings if necessary. 

Besides that, if the requirement was to sell at a 50% discount but the price was 100%, that cannot be corrected by the seller's solicitor, anyway. 

And we still have not heard from the op whether he complied with the requirements to be eligible for the 50% discount. 

The OP says that they paid full price, so restrictions not complied with. The only way to realistically comply with it is to refund the OP 50% of purchase price.

That requires the participation of the seller, and they are probably delighted with the extra cash and have no desire to refund any of it. 

EssexHebridean

GDB2222 said:

housebuyer143 said:

GDB2222 said:

MobileSaver said:

Faddi777 said:

Im still  convinced that estate agent is equally responsible for this a
-On the basis that they failed to disclosed key information.

Do you have evidence that the EA was aware of key information that they failed to disclose? (I'm thinking that maybe you do since I'd be surprised otherwise that the PRS found in your favour.)

Faddi777 said:

not carrying out reasonable checks which an everage consumer should know or expect estate agent to be aware of .

Assuming you are referring to the restrictive covenant being missed as being a "reasonable check", that's (currently) the solicitor's responsibility and not the EA's responsibility (unless they had previously been made aware of it). There has been talk of making it a legal requirement for EAs to actively check and disclose such information but as far as I know that is not yet in legislation.

Faddi777 said:

I have lost contact with my solicitor who solely blamed all on seller's solicitor for this in his last email.

I suggested last week that this might be the case; if the seller's solicitor gave undertakings that the restrictions would be complied with then they are probably the ones at fault, not your solicitor.
However you don't know who asked or undertook what which is why as advised you need to immediately start the formal complaint process.

If the seller's solicitor gave undertakings that they have not complied with, I’d expect the buyer’s solicitor to be all over this. The SRA will enforce compliance with undertakings if necessary. 

Besides that, if the requirement was to sell at a 50% discount but the price was 100%, that cannot be corrected by the seller's solicitor, anyway. 

And we still have not heard from the op whether he complied with the requirements to be eligible for the 50% discount. 

The OP says that they paid full price, so restrictions not complied with. The only way to realistically comply with it is to refund the OP 50% of purchase price.

That requires the participation of the seller, and they are probably delighted with the extra cash and have no desire to refund any of it. 

And of course, they may well be entirely unaware that there is even any "extra cash" and may well have taken this straight into their next purchase. 

GDB2222

EssexHebridean said:

GDB2222 said:

housebuyer143 said:

GDB2222 said:

MobileSaver said:

Faddi777 said:

Im still  convinced that estate agent is equally responsible for this a
-On the basis that they failed to disclosed key information.

Do you have evidence that the EA was aware of key information that they failed to disclose? (I'm thinking that maybe you do since I'd be surprised otherwise that the PRS found in your favour.)

Faddi777 said:

not carrying out reasonable checks which an everage consumer should know or expect estate agent to be aware of .

Assuming you are referring to the restrictive covenant being missed as being a "reasonable check", that's (currently) the solicitor's responsibility and not the EA's responsibility (unless they had previously been made aware of it). There has been talk of making it a legal requirement for EAs to actively check and disclose such information but as far as I know that is not yet in legislation.

Faddi777 said:

I have lost contact with my solicitor who solely blamed all on seller's solicitor for this in his last email.

I suggested last week that this might be the case; if the seller's solicitor gave undertakings that the restrictions would be complied with then they are probably the ones at fault, not your solicitor.
However you don't know who asked or undertook what which is why as advised you need to immediately start the formal complaint process.

If the seller's solicitor gave undertakings that they have not complied with, I’d expect the buyer’s solicitor to be all over this. The SRA will enforce compliance with undertakings if necessary. 

Besides that, if the requirement was to sell at a 50% discount but the price was 100%, that cannot be corrected by the seller's solicitor, anyway. 

And we still have not heard from the op whether he complied with the requirements to be eligible for the 50% discount. 

The OP says that they paid full price, so restrictions not complied with. The only way to realistically comply with it is to refund the OP 50% of purchase price.

That requires the participation of the seller, and they are probably delighted with the extra cash and have no desire to refund any of it. 

And of course, they may well be entirely unaware that there is even any "extra cash" and may well have taken this straight into their next purchase. 

My memory is pretty bad, but I think I would remember that I had bought my house half price, on condition that I sold it half price, too. 

EssexHebridean

GDB2222 said:

EssexHebridean said:

GDB2222 said:

housebuyer143 said:

GDB2222 said:

MobileSaver said:

Faddi777 said:

Im still  convinced that estate agent is equally responsible for this a
-On the basis that they failed to disclosed key information.

Do you have evidence that the EA was aware of key information that they failed to disclose? (I'm thinking that maybe you do since I'd be surprised otherwise that the PRS found in your favour.)

Faddi777 said:

not carrying out reasonable checks which an everage consumer should know or expect estate agent to be aware of .

Assuming you are referring to the restrictive covenant being missed as being a "reasonable check", that's (currently) the solicitor's responsibility and not the EA's responsibility (unless they had previously been made aware of it). There has been talk of making it a legal requirement for EAs to actively check and disclose such information but as far as I know that is not yet in legislation.

Faddi777 said:

I have lost contact with my solicitor who solely blamed all on seller's solicitor for this in his last email.

I suggested last week that this might be the case; if the seller's solicitor gave undertakings that the restrictions would be complied with then they are probably the ones at fault, not your solicitor.
However you don't know who asked or undertook what which is why as advised you need to immediately start the formal complaint process.

If the seller's solicitor gave undertakings that they have not complied with, I’d expect the buyer’s solicitor to be all over this. The SRA will enforce compliance with undertakings if necessary. 

Besides that, if the requirement was to sell at a 50% discount but the price was 100%, that cannot be corrected by the seller's solicitor, anyway. 

And we still have not heard from the op whether he complied with the requirements to be eligible for the 50% discount. 

The OP says that they paid full price, so restrictions not complied with. The only way to realistically comply with it is to refund the OP 50% of purchase price.

That requires the participation of the seller, and they are probably delighted with the extra cash and have no desire to refund any of it. 

And of course, they may well be entirely unaware that there is even any "extra cash" and may well have taken this straight into their next purchase. 

My memory is pretty bad, but I think I would remember that I had bought my house half price, on condition that I sold it half price, too. 

Not beyond the bounds of possibility, particularly if they’ve been there a while, that they thought any such terms had expired. As previously said, this should have been picked up by both side’s solicitors anyway.