Estate Agent lied about dispute and it cost me thoudsands

GDB2222

Since I am suggesting a complaint to the ombudsman, it's worth looking at the requirements of 7i of their code of practice.

https://www.tpos.co.uk/images/codes-of-practice/TPOE27-8_Code_of_Practice_for_Residential_Estate_Agents_A4_FINAL.pdf

7i  You must by law comply with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (or the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008 where applicable). The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 require you to disclose any information of which you are aware or should be aware of in relation to the property in a clear, intelligible and timely fashion and to take all reasonable steps to ensure that all statements that you make about a property, whether oral, pictorial or written, are accurate and are not misleading. All material information (*) must be disclosed and there must be no material omissions which may impact on the average consumer’s (*) transactional decision (*). Where information is given to consumers and/or their representatives, it must be accurate and not misleading.

EssexHebridean

The professional diligence argument is almost certainly a non starter - particularly in relation to anything which is in essence a “legal question” - the agent simply doesn’t have the knowledge, understanding or training to be able to take an informed stance  - and nor should they be expected to, this is as said why we have solicitors! Had the seller’s SOLICITOR been in possession of this information and not passed it on however, that would be a different matter, and had they been told by their client not to pass that information on, then that is the point when they should be declaring a conflict of interest and refusing to continue to act in the matter. Ethically then there is probably an argument that the EA should behave in exactly the same way, but I confess I don’t think that is particularly likely to happen! 

Agents are very good indeed at cutting questions off at the roots - if they feel those questions might put them in a conflicted position. So proving the knowledge existed in the first place is always going to be an enormous challenge. If a letter from an aggrieved party was to be considered a solid source of information, then that would be an excellent way of someone with a grudge destroying their “enemy’s” ability to sell their home, after all. If anyone thinks that would not be used for ill, then they may be quite naive! 

ThisIsWeird

Hopefully the OP will come back with the outcome, either from the EA, or the 'budsman.

newsgroupmonkey_

EssexHebridean said:

The professional diligence argument is almost certainly a non starter - particularly in relation to anything which is in essence a “legal question” - the agent simply doesn’t have the knowledge, understanding or training to be able to take an informed stance  - and nor should they be expected to, this is as said why we have solicitors! Had the seller’s SOLICITOR been in possession of this information and not passed it on however, that would be a different matter, and had they been told by their client not to pass that information on, then that is the point when they should be declaring a conflict of interest and refusing to continue to act in the matter. Ethically then there is probably an argument that the EA should behave in exactly the same way, but I confess I don’t think that is particularly likely to happen! 

Agents are very good indeed at cutting questions off at the roots - if they feel those questions might put them in a conflicted position. So proving the knowledge existed in the first place is always going to be an enormous challenge. If a letter from an aggrieved party was to be considered a solid source of information, then that would be an excellent way of someone with a grudge destroying their “enemy’s” ability to sell their home, after all. If anyone thinks that would not be used for ill, then they may be quite naive! 

I disagree. It's not a legal question. It is a basic one which a 10 year old should be able to answer.

The EA knew and had in writing that there was a dispute. I think we've moved from the original point.

The EA blatantly lied. They said that the OP could move the fence once they moved in. That's not only untrue, that's a deliberate lie and they knew it. Not only that, but it can be proven.

Oh and before someone says "Yes, but that particular person may not have known"

Ignorance isn't a defence. If you don't know the answer to a question you say "I don't know, I'll come back to you". We all respect that kind of answer.

Hoenir

he had informed the estate agent of the dispute in writing a few months before my offer

A few months is tenerous as the basis of throwing accusations around at a 3rd party. By the time the TA6 was completed many months had past. 

ThisIsWeird

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

The EA knew and had in writing that there was a dispute.

The EA blatantly lied. They said that the OP could move the fence once they moved in. That's not only untrue, that's a deliberate lie and they knew it. Not only that, but it can be proven.

Oh and before someone says "Yes, but that particular person may not have known"

Ignorance isn't a defence. If you don't know the answer to a question you say "I don't know, I'll come back to you". We all respect that kind of answer.

I think the bibs are indeed the gist.

The Agency was informed. And the actual agent who spoke to the potential buyer - the OP - obviously knew there was an 'issue' as well, or else they wouldn't have said anything about 'moving a fence'. Why would they mention a fence needing to be moved if they were ignorant of any boundary dispute? Clearly nonsense.

That's pretty conclusive, I think. If the OP can evidence these points to a reasonable degree, I this EA may be in trouble. And rightly so.