legal question?

Smalltownhypocrite

Wondering what the legalities of this situation maybe.

What happens if someone sees a house advert on rightmove, make an accepted offer though the EA and go SSTC with the memorandum of sale. The buyer then pays thousands for survey and conveyance fees etc... then is told by the solicitor they can't exchange and complete because it turns out the house wasn't ever owned by the person 'selling it' and was legally seized due to fraud investigation and is non proceed-able. EA have now admitted they know they seller does not own the house and there are 'legal issues'.

Can the fake seller or the EA be sued for the money lost by the buyer in good faith?

I know in cases of sale falling through due to offers being pulled, chain collapse, failed mortgages etc... there isn't recourse but if the whole thing was a scam from the very beginning and never legally able to be sold but the buyers where lied to is it not 'fraud' which the EA have been lying and covering up.

user1977

Has any of this actually happened, or is it a hypothetical question?

Mark_d

Surely the EA would not have continued to list the property after finding out about the legal issues?

Some conveyancing companies don't change fees where the sale/purchase doesn't proceed...but I agree that you might be out-of-pocket for some of the searches and the survey.

I think you need to work with your conveyancers/solicitors to work out what can be done...if anything.  I suspect you've just been unlucky

propertyrental

which ombudsman scheme does the EA belong to?

DE_612183

you could send an invoice to the EA's and then eventually take them to small claims court.

would then depend on the judges view whether you get the money or not.

How much are we talking about?

Brie

The chances of collecting from someone already guilty of fraud would be minimal I think.  But if the EA acted in bad faith then I think that's the direction you need to take. 

eddddy

Smalltownhypocrite said:

EA have now admitted they know they seller does not own the house and there are 'legal issues'.

I'd be surprised if an EA would waste their time and effort in marketing a house and progressing a sale, if they knew their client didn't actually own the house.  

• At what point do you believe the EA became aware?

• Did the EA tell you as soon as they found out?

But anyway.... assuming the EA is a member of the property ombudsman scheme (most are), and depending on the facts of what exactly happened, the ombudsman might award you some compensation, if you complain.

For example, if the EA did one of the following:

• Failed to check the Land Registry title register to check who owned the house

• And/or failed to tell you about legal issues relating to ownership, as soon as the EA knew about them

IN those types of situations, ombudsman might uphold your complaint and order the EA to pay you some compensation..

Christologymum_2

The house I’ve just sold, before we could list it we had to have our identity checked and confirm ownership by land registry by the estate agent. So you’d have an argument that they haven’t done their due diligence 

Hoenir

Smalltownhypocrite said:

 but if the whole thing was a scam from the very beginning and never legally able to be sold but the buyers where lied to is it not 'fraud' which the EA have been lying and covering up.

Be very carefull before making accusations and defamatory comments in public. There's most likely facts that you are unaware of.  Why would an Estate Agency ruin their entire business attempting a fraud which would never ever work. Makes no sense. 

Schwarzwald

All a but cryptic.

did the seller own it at one point but the property is now being seized?

or is the seller in the process of seizing it but process hasnt completed yet?

also, when you say the EA knew … did they know from the beginning or did it all come up recently in the process?

they might have gotten deceived as you been.

believe some more info and context helpful to truly opine.

Schwarzwald

Smalltownhypocrite said:

the house wasn't ever owned by the person 'selling it' and was legally seized due to fraud investigation

Also this … i dont think assets are seized cos of investigations. Either there is an sctual judgement OR maybe assets are temporarily frozen while the investigation is ongoing. But all makes a difference.
also “wasnt ever” owned …. is this corect? Or was it owned but now frozen?