Estate Agent lied about dispute and it cost me thoudsands

GDB2222

I suggest you complain to the EA, and then take this to the ombudsman.  That is the correct order. The ombudsman will only look at it after you have complained to the EA.

theartfullodger

Dipsydog said:

.................. Can I claim from the agent for him lying to me?

Where/how?? (eg suing in court? writing him a letter want £x,000??).  You can claim: Will you win??

I can claim that a certain PM lied about serious constitutional matters: Will I win?

ThisIsWeird

theartfullodger said:

Dipsydog said:

.................. Can I claim from the agent for him lying to me?

Where/how?? (eg suing in court? writing him a letter want £x,000??).  You can claim: Will you win??

I can claim that a certain PM lied about serious constitutional matters: Will I win?

You chust keep Bo' out of this - politics ain't allowed...

GDB2222

theartfullodger said:

Dipsydog said:

.................. Can I claim from the agent for him lying to me?

Where/how?? (eg suing in court? writing him a letter want £x,000??).  You can claim: Will you win??

I can claim that a certain PM lied about serious constitutional matters: Will I win?

The estate agent is subject to a code of practice laid down by the ombudsman. So, the op should complain to the estate agent initially, and if fobbed off, as seems likely, take it to the ombudsman.

 The estate agent is also subject to consumer protection laws, and he has a legal obligation to disclose defects in the property at an early stage in the sale process, but taking this to court would be a much more difficult task. 

My experience with the ombudsman is that they will not award as much as the court would award, but it is a relatively simple process. 

Contrary to others, I think that a signed statement from the neighbour that he told the estate agent about the dispute would be compelling evidence. This is not a criminal case, and the standard of proof is just balance of probabilities. So, why would the neighbour lie about this? 

Schwarzwald

Dipsydog said:

Thanks 'Thisisweird' the case took a year to get to court …The neighbour won one of his claims against the vendor and the house is now again up for sale and under offer.

When did you drop out of the buy? One year ago already?
if this case is some time ago, probably too much time has passed 

EssexHebridean

Sorry, but that isn’t true about agents having a duty to disclose anything like that. The agent can’t lie about things he knows to be true - but that doesn’t include - for example - a neighbour dispute where the seller may have not even mentioned it, and there cannot be a reasonable expectation on the agent to ask questions about this sort of thing, as they aren’t qualified to take a view on what constitutes a “dispute”. The agent simply isn’t qualified to do any amount of digging about the title, either, that is why we get solicitors involved and contract packs are sent early-doors in a matter. The onus IS on the vendor to be truthful when completing the TA6, but again, until there is a contract in place, that doesn’t help either. 

The neighbour having informed the agent about a dispute is also a bit of a red herring. The agent works for the seller. Even if we assume he didn’t just take it as a nasty piece of malicious behaviour, if he asked the seller about it, and the seller said “I don’t want you to tell any prospective buyers about it” then unless asked directly, thr agent would still have no duty to disclose, and if asked directly, his most likely response should be along the lines of “Oh I’m not able to go into things like that, it’s one for your solicitor to bring up if you progress this”. 

ThisIsWeird

EssexHebridean said:

Sorry, but that isn’t true about agents having a duty to disclose anything like that. The agent can’t lie about things he knows to be true - but that doesn’t include - for example - a neighbour dispute where the seller may have not even mentioned it, and there cannot be a reasonable expectation on the agent to ask questions about this sort of thing, as they aren’t qualified to take a view on what constitutes a “dispute”. The agent simply isn’t qualified to do any amount of digging about the title, either, that is why we get solicitors involved and contract packs are sent early-doors in a matter. The onus IS on the vendor to be truthful when completing the TA6, but again, until there is a contract in place, that doesn’t help either. 

The neighbour having informed the agent about a dispute is also a bit of a red herring. The agent works for the seller. Even if we assume he didn’t just take it as a nasty piece of malicious behaviour, if he asked the seller about it, and the seller said “I don’t want you to tell any prospective buyers about it” then unless asked directly, thr agent would still have no duty to disclose, and if asked directly, his most likely response should be along the lines of “Oh I’m not able to go into things like that, it’s one for your solicitor to bring up if you progress this”. 

My understanding is, the EA must declare anything they are aware of that could materially affect the value or desirability of a property. A neighbourly dispute almost certainly qualifies -it would to the vast majority of potential buyers. The Q is - did the EA know?

It would appear in this case that the EA did know, and this can be evidenced - if the neighbour did so by a recorded means.

I suspect the EA's mitigation will be that the info wasn't passed on to the specific agent dealing with the property, so "we'll tighten up on our procedures, and we're well sorry."

EssexHebridean

I believe that your understanding of the EA’s obligations is incorrect, I’m afraid. 

ThisIsWeird

EssexHebridean said:

I believe that your understanding of the EA’s obligations is incorrect, I’m afraid. 

I suspect it's a grey area depending on what the issue is, and whether it can be proven that the EA knew.

In general, tho', (Home Owners Alliance)

2. Not withhold important information

Under estate agents legal obligations to buyers, estate agents should also disclose all material information. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 requires estate agents must disclose any ‘information of which they are aware or should be aware of in relation to the property in a clear, intelligible and timely fashion’.

There should be no omissions that may impact on the average consumer’s decision to view, make an offer on or buy a property. And where information is given to potential buyers or their representatives, it must be accurate and not misleading.

Article following 'research' by Churchill's insurance:

It is a legal requirement for estate agents to report any negative issues that may affect the buying decision under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading regulations, but it appears they don’t seem to be bothering to collect this sort of information.
According to a new study by Churchill Home Insurance who surveyed 116 estate agents found that only 40% of estate agents actually ask property sellers to reveal any issues they may have with their neighbours. It was reported by Churchill Home Insurance that 10% of estate agents just rely solely on the purchasers’ solicitor or conveyancer to investigate any existing issues they may have.Churchill’s report said ‘If an estate agent has been made aware of a nightmare neighbour or previous council disputes, they are obliged to inform the buyer'.
Informing potential buyers of neighbour issues is not only a legal requirement as already mentioned but according to Churchills report nuisance neighbours can devalue the property by more than £6,000 or even lose the sale. In fact sellers were required to drop the asking price by an average of £5,400 in Scotland and £7,000 in England and Wales. So not only does this fact mean that estate agents are potentially incorrectly overpricing properties, but by deliberately misleading a buyer to purchase this property could mean they will face expensive legal action further down the line.

That said, we had an EA locally who sold the same bungalow around 5 times, with each buyer pulling out after their survey revealed it was subsiding. The EA never declared this.

GDB2222

EssexHebridean said:

I believe that your understanding of the EA’s obligations is incorrect, I’m afraid. 

My understanding is that The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 is still in force.

Prohibition of unfair commercial practices

3.—(1) Unfair commercial practices are prohibited.

(2) Paragraphs (3) and (4) set out the circumstances when a commercial practice is unfair.

(3) A commercial practice is unfair if—

(a)it contravenes the requirements of professional diligence; and

(b)it materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product.

(4) A commercial practice is unfair if—

(a)it is a misleading action under the provisions of regulation 5;

(b)it is a misleading omission under the provisions of regulation 6;

(c)it is aggressive under the provisions of regulation 7; or

(d)it is listed in Schedule 1.

We can probably agree that an ongoing dispute " is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product."

So, that leaves arguments about "requirements of professional diligence" perhaps? 

And, then, there are misleading omissions ...

You seem rather sure that this doesn't apply. Other sources think it does apply.