Should I complain about the EA?

nadire

Good morning, we've just had a terrible experience with an EA (and the seller). I'm thinking of complaining to the onbudsman but their instructions suggest I should complain to the EA in the first place. I think that's fair enough, but I wonder if it's worth doing it so any thoughts or advice here would be much appreciated.

Long story short: in January, we found a house that had been in the market for ages (being marketed by two agencies - let's call them EA1 and EA2, both national ones in the UK). We viewed via EA1 and offer accepted, but EA1 said seller didn't want to remove the ad (cos he had lost buyers 3 times in the past few months, though we were not told the reasons), however, no further viewings would be allowed. As we quite liked this house, we agreed but asked EA1 to put this down in writing (i.e. no further viewings will be allowed), they agreed but never did even when we chased a couple of times. What was even more annoying is that a few days later, I happened to see a note added to that ad on Rightmove, saying 'an offer has been accepted but viewings are still welcomed'. As we tried to sympathise with the seller's desperateness to sell, later we decided to swallow this annoyance and focused on doing what we could on the buying process - at the end of the day, we believed the seller was just keen to complete as early as possible, so were we.

EA1 said seller wanted us to have the survey done within 2 weeks, which we did. Now, 4 weeks since our offer was accepted, our solicitor suddenly received an email from the seller's solicitor saying that he now wanted to sell the property subject to tenancy! This was shocking to us, but what's even worse is that we have just happened to find this property being marketed by EA2 on Rightmove for renting and labelled as 'immediately available' - according to the history, this ad has been there since January, but we have never been informed of this by EA1...

This was obviously the last straw. We passed our disappointment with the seller's lack of honesty and transparency via our solicitor and pulled out. 

Apparently what the seller has done is absolutely disgraceful, but unfortunately the current buying and selling system allows him to do that. What makes me particularly angry is that EA1 never informed us of the fact that this property was (and is still) being marketed as available for renting, and I wonder if that counts as misleading? I guess they may say they didn't know it cos the ad for renting was under EA2's name - is that possible?

As aforementioned, both are large EAs, and I do see the complaining policy on EA1's website, but is it worth complaining about them?  

Thank you in advance.

Hoenir

nadire said:

We passed our disappointment with the seller's lack of honesty and transparency via our solicitor and pulled out. 

People will always be people. That's why they make great actors. Move on. Find another property. 

EA's time and marketing costs don't come for free either. Equally as frustrating for those running a business. 

FlorayG

You can't prove that EA1 knew anything about the rental offer so I wouldn't bother. EA1 is probably charging the seller their fees anyway so that's sort of 'getting your own back' for their dishonesty
Can't understand why they would do that anyway, you've obviously going to withdraw your offer once a tenant is in place, people can be very stupid

TheJP

Whats the point, the seller is the EA customer here. Just walk away and focus on the next property.

eddddy

nadire said:

Now, 4 weeks since our offer was accepted, our solicitor suddenly received an email from the seller's solicitor saying that he now wanted to sell the property subject to tenancy! 

Just to clarify - are you saying that this is a 'threat' that the seller is making?

Or are you saying it's a 'done deal', and the seller has withdrawn from selling to you?

What has EA1 said about the seller's intentions?



(FWIW, tenanted properties usually sell for less than vacant properties, so it's probably not a smart move by the seller.

A seller did something similar to me. After accepting my offer, the seller advertised the property for rental, because they thought it would scare me, and strengthen their negotiating position. But I don't think they had any intention of renting it out.)



 

nadire

eddddy said:

nadire said:

Now, 4 weeks since our offer was accepted, our solicitor suddenly received an email from the seller's solicitor saying that he now wanted to sell the property subject to tenancy! 

Just to clarify - are you saying that this is a 'threat' that the seller is making?

Or are you saying it's a 'done deal', and the seller has withdrawn from selling to you?

What has EA1 said about the seller's intentions?



(FWIW, tenanted properties usually sell for less than vacant properties, so it's probably not a smart move by the seller.

A seller did something similar to me. After accepting my offer, the seller advertised the property for rental, because they thought it would scare me, and strengthen their negotiating position. But I don't think they had any intention of renting it out.)

Thank you for your comment. We thought it was a threat until we saw the ad for renting and it was there since January. This house is vacant and has been on the market for sale for months. The EA didn't say anything about the seller's intentions, we just received the email from our solicitor showing the original message from the seller's solicitor. 

EssexHebridean

I'm confused - you say that EA2 was marketing the property for renting, but you want to complain to EA1 for not telling you about it? Are the two agents linked - I got the impression from your original post that they were independent of one another? If they aren't linked, why would EA1 even have known about the rental ad? 

Much as EA's can be a pain sometimes, they are limited by the transparency of the seller - if the seller has withheld material facts from them, there is little they can do about that. "Are you also marketing the property for rental" wouldn't be a standard question to be put to a seller who has instructed them to act on a sale as far as I know - they may have asked whether the property was tenanted, but of course the seller could have simply chosen to answer that accurately as "no". 

saajan_12

There will be much much worse in the house buying process, and while that itself shouldn't be an excuse for bad behaviour, that is the context in which any ombudsman will view your complaint. EA1 will say they didn't know about EA2's discussions, and that they were acting on the seller's instructions on how to advertise etc. So no, personally I wouldn't bother wtih a complaint in this case.. it'll suck up your time and brainspace, while not likely to get you any compensation or change. 

As for your actual purchase, was the property empty or tenanted when you viewed? It sounds like they've possibly had it vacated but because the sale is taking longer, they want to get some income even if that means the tenancy lasts longer than their ownership. IMO quite short sighted of them as it precludes owner occupiers who wouldn't get a BTL mortgage, but I guess their choice. Now its up to you whether you 
- proceed anyway at full speed and try to get to exchange before they find a tenant. 
- stop and demand all other ads are taken down, stating you're looking elsewhere in the meantime. 

eddddy

nadire said:

Thank you for your comment. We thought it was a threat until we saw the ad for renting and it was there since January. This house is vacant and has been on the market for sale for months. The EA didn't say anything about the seller's intentions, we just received the email from our solicitor showing the original message from the seller's solicitor. 

So you need to speak to EA1 to find out what's going on.  If they don't already know, they can phone the seller and ask.


If you want, you could also contact EA2 to ask them for their side of the story. But be careful about believing everything they say. Estate Agents are super-competitive, and EA2 would be delighted if they could say something to you that could scupper EA1's sale. So they might say things to try to scare you into withdrawing.


But TBH, conversely, EA1 will be desperate for the sale to you to go through, so they might be tempted to grasp at straws and paint a rosier picture than the reality.

nadire

EssexHebridean said:

I'm confused - you say that EA2 was marketing the property for renting, but you want to complain to EA1 for not telling you about it? Are the two agents linked - I got the impression from your original post that they were independent of one another? If they aren't linked, why would EA1 even have known about the rental ad? 

Much as EA's can be a pain sometimes, they are limited by the transparency of the seller - if the seller has withheld material facts from them, there is little they can do about that. "Are you also marketing the property for rental" wouldn't be a standard question to be put to a seller who has instructed them to act on a sale as far as I know - they may have asked whether the property was tenanted, but of course the seller could have simply chosen to answer that accurately as "no". 

Thank you for your comment. I could only say I doubt EA1 didn't know the rental ad by EA2, because as far as I can see, the two agencies work closely with each other (interestingly, when we did the 2nd viewing at the property, EA1 told us to get the key from EA2), but you are right, EA1 does have tons of reasons to say they didn't know it and I have no evidence indeed...

lincroft1710

I'm pretty certain I've seen this happen before. The same property either for rent or for sale. Usually if a rental is agreed then the property is withdrawn from sale or marked as unavailable until the tenancy end date (which I know there is no guarantee the property would be available on that date)