Neighbours sabotaging property sale - advice needed

deannagone

To get back to basics.  Do the neighbours actually own 2 XL bully dogs who are at the neighbours house all the time or were they owned by visitors attending what sounds like a social occasion?  Are they really XL bully dogs? Sometimes people see 'frightening dog' and just call them XL bullys when they aren't (I have seen this happen myself)

Parsimonious_Monk

Grumpy_chap said:

I am not sure that the neighbours have "sabotaged" the process in any way at all.

The OP was not present, but an "open day" viewing was held and 45 potential purchasers attended.  That probably means 45 cars and something like 100-odd people in total traipsing through the house, looking up and down the street, etc.

Following this event, the OP has received multiple above-asking offers.  Clearly, whatever might have gone on, the inconvenience was not enough to deter those that submitted offers.

There is also some second-hand feedback about the neighbour's dog being a bit lively and the children playing noisily in the garden.  Maybe the dog was excited at hearing so many people.  

I really would put nothing on the feedback.  After a viewing, EAs tend to ask what an individual thought of a property and some people then feel they have to give some comment as to why they are not offering, so make up some rather inconsequential comment "the neighbour's dog was a bit noisy" or "parking seemed a bit congested" or "there was a cloud in the sky making the back garden to dull to sit out and enjoy".  All these such comments really mean nothing, but are conversational remarks to fill a void. 

Some people felt the house was not for them - that is all the OP needs to know about those viewers.
More importantly, some people felt the house was for them and submitted offers - this is far more important for the OP.

If I were the OP, I'd ignore all the second-hand comments from people who did not like the property, ignore whether the neighbour's dog / children were noisy, and focus on progressing the best of the actual offers to a successful conclusion.

All a bit "nothing to see here - move along please"

There wouldn't have been cars parking up as it is permit-only. We received very specific feedback on the issue with the dogs by 8 different viewers. One said they were going to make an offer but decided against given the commotion outside. All of the staff at the Estate Agents were pretty aghast at what had happened and it was clearly out of the ordinary. In terms of the 'kid' involved he is in his twenties and is antisocial. He threatened me with violence after I questioned what had happened. 

Parsimonious_Monk

Grumpy_chap said:

subjecttocontract said:

Well that's even worse. Your saying that even if you are only thinking about reporting something to the police you need to declare it ! I don't think that can be right.

I think that is moot in this case as I don't think the OP can report the alleged behaviour of the dogs (or the dogs' owners / OP's neighbours) to the Police.

The OP has not witnessed the apparent poor behaviour / wild, loose dogs devouring children for elevenses.  The OP only has second-hand hearsay of such events via the EA.

It is really for those property viewers that witnessed these terrible events to log any such horrific incident as occurred and make the reports (as first hand witnesses / victims) to the Police.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Police had not responded with a SWAT team and fully dealt with the issue prior to the OP returning from the rave they were at over the weekend while the EA was accompanying some 100-odd people and marshalling the 45 cars in a well-planned open-day viewing event at the property.

It certainly does not seem to be anything the OP needs to log as a dispute on the property information form.
Unless every rumour of unwitnessed bad behaviour gives rise to a dispute.  I suspect there is not a property in the land where this level of "dispute" has to be reported...

I actually see this from the other side that it was, perhaps, un-neighbourly of the OP to be absent for the weekend while arranging an open-house viewing event for the highly-popular property with so many people attending and not being around in person to assure the neighbours and apologise for any inconvenience the OP's guests may be causing to the neighbours.  

Very odd response. Clearly have a bit too much time on your hands

Parsimonious_Monk

deannagone said:

To get back to basics.  Do the neighbours actually own 2 XL bully dogs who are at the neighbours house all the time or were they owned by visitors attending what sounds like a social occasion?  Are they really XL bully dogs? Sometimes people see 'frightening dog' and just call them XL bullys when they aren't (I have seen this happen myself)

They have signs outside on their gate stating that they have American Bully's. Don't know for sure whether XL or not, but have seen one being walked outside with a muzzle on. 

I am a dog owner myself. I'm not particularly bothered myself about the dogs, it was more the behaviour of the owner towards the viewers on the day. 

nicmyles

There is no way this meets the threshold of needing to be declared as a dispute. The question is not asking whether you've ever had a disagreement with a neighbour about something.