Should I complain about the EA?

Hoenir

Unusual for the message to be transmitted via their solicitor. Why has the vendor not kept the EA's informed. Game playing I suspect. 

NameUnavailable

You need to complain about the vendor but they aren't subject to any official body's complaint procedure!

Unfortunately until contracts are exchanged literally anything can happen. The vendor has wasted the EA's time and hopefully as you're a ready willing and able buyer, they will hold the vendor to paying their fees!

nadire

Many thanks to everyone's input, much appreciated! It was a very unpleasant experience to deal with this seller, and no matter if he did this as a threat or for sure, we just cannot trust him anymore, so we've decided to pull out, let go and look for another property. 

eddddy

nadire said:

Many thanks to everyone's input, much appreciated! It was a very unpleasant experience to deal with this seller, and no matter if he did this as a threat or for sure, we just cannot trust him anymore, so we've decided to pull out, let go and look for another property. 

Sounds reasonable.

In that case, back to your original question about complaining about the EA.

• If the EA failed to tell you some material information which they knew, or should have known - then they breached consumer protection laws.

• If the EA is a member of the Property Ombudsman scheme (most are) - you can complain to the EA and then to the Ombudsman

• If the Ombudsman agrees that the EA breached consumer protection laws by failing to disclose material info - the Ombudsman can order the EA to pay you compensation for your losses

So the key question is "Did EA1 know (or should have known) that the property was being advertised for rental?"

And for example, the Ombudsman can ask to see all the EA's files, to see if there are any notes about the property being advertised for rental.



(TBH, the comments above only really scratch the surface. I expect they'll be a bunch of other facts for the Ombudsman to look at.)

TheJP

eddddy said:

nadire said:

Many thanks to everyone's input, much appreciated! It was a very unpleasant experience to deal with this seller, and no matter if he did this as a threat or for sure, we just cannot trust him anymore, so we've decided to pull out, let go and look for another property. 

Sounds reasonable.

In that case, back to your original question about complaining about the EA.

• If the EA failed to tell you some material information which they knew, or should have known - then they breached consumer protection laws.

• If the EA is a member of the Property Ombudsman scheme (most are) - you can complain to the EA and then to the Ombudsman

• If the Ombudsman agrees that the EA breached consumer protection laws by failing to disclose material info - the Ombudsman can order the EA to pay you compensation for your losses

So the key question is "Did EA1 know (or should have known) that the property was being advertised for rental?"

And for example, the Ombudsman can ask to see all the EA's files, to see if there are any notes about the property being advertised for rental.



(TBH, the comments above only really scratch the surface. I expect they'll be a bunch of other facts for the Ombudsman to look at.)

If EA1 did know that the sellers had also listed it as a rental with EA2 im not sure if that would be breaching consumer protection laws, many sellers have multiple EAs handling their property interests. The EA1 would be more concerned about getting the sale so that they pay, we dont know what the intentions the seller had with the property, was it a race to the finish approach? Who knows. 

OP i think you are doing the right thing by walking away, i wouldn't waste anymore energy on this matter as house buying is exhausting enough without adding this to the plate.

eddddy

TheJP said:

If EA1 did know that the sellers had also listed it as a rental with EA2 im not sure if that would be breaching consumer protection laws, many sellers have multiple EAs handling their property interests. 

I'm not sure that I follow that logic.

If EA1 knew that the property was being advertised for rental by EA2, I'd be pretty sure EA1 would have asked the seller about their intentions once the offer was from the OP was accepted. (Or if EA1 didn't ask, why not?)

• If the seller replied "I'm going for a contract race, sale vs rental" - that's material information, and the EA should have told the OP

• If the seller replied "I'm leaving it advertised for rental as a backup" - then that's probably material information. It would be for the Ombudsman to decide.

• If the seller replied "I'm no longer planning to rent it out" - then should the EA have kept asking the seller why it was still being advertised for rental? And maybe the continued advertising is material information that the EA should have disclosed to the OP. Again, that's for the Ombudsman to decide.

For an EA, failing to disclose material information is breaking the law.

But it's also possible that EA1 genuinely had no idea that the property was being advertised for rental. 

As I say, it all hinges on what actually happened, and what the EA knew, or should have known.

TheJP said:

The EA1 would be more concerned about getting the sale so that they pay...

So you're suggesting the EA's motive for not disclosing material information.

You're suggesting the EA might have broken the law to increase their chances of getting paid.




Obviously, I've no idea whether EA1 broke the law - I'm just describing the law to the OP (along with some hypothetical examples) so they can decide whether they feel they have a chance of winning a complaint.

The Ombudsman would make a decision based on the balance of probabilities.

pretamang

many buyers and sellers do strange things; if I'd been put off by the odd behaviour of sellers I would never of got this house (or the last one), but we got there and I'm glad I did in both cases.

It doesn't sound to me like the EA has been dishonest, ultimately they don't get paid if it doesn't sell so they will want it to progress. Maybe they knew about the potential tenants, but didn't think it would be an issue for them to be out in time for a purchase to go through.

If you do decide you want this property, then you're in a position to make some demands: a) that it's taken off the market, b) that it's no longer available for rent.
It sounds like you're sensible and pragmatic enough to walk away if they don't meet your demands or if you feel you can't trust them, which is a good thing.

TheJP

eddddy said:

TheJP said:

If EA1 did know that the sellers had also listed it as a rental with EA2 im not sure if that would be breaching consumer protection laws, many sellers have multiple EAs handling their property interests. 

I'm not sure that I follow that logic.

If EA1 knew that the property was being advertised for rental by EA2, I'd be pretty sure EA1 would have asked the seller about their intentions once the offer was from the OP was accepted. (Or if EA1 didn't ask, why not?)

• If the seller replied "I'm going for a contract race, sale vs rental" - that's material information, and the EA should have told the OP

• If the seller replied "I'm leaving it advertised for rental as a backup" - then that's probably material information. It would be for the Ombudsman to decide.

• If the seller replied "I'm no longer planning to rent it out" - then should the EA have kept asking the seller why it was still being advertised for rental? And maybe the continued advertising is material information that the EA should have disclosed to the OP. Again, that's for the Ombudsman to decide.

For an EA, failing to disclose material information is breaking the law.

But it's also possible that EA1 genuinely had no idea that the property was being advertised for rental. 

As I say, it all hinges on what actually happened, and what the EA knew, or should have known.

TheJP said:

The EA1 would be more concerned about getting the sale so that they pay...

So you're suggesting the EA's motive for not disclosing material information.

You're suggesting the EA might have broken the law to increase their chances of getting paid.




Obviously, I've no idea whether EA1 broke the law - I'm just describing the law to the OP (along with some hypothetical examples) so they can decide whether they feel they have a chance of winning a complaint.

The Ombudsman would make a decision based on the balance of probabilities.

My logic is that the material information regarding EA2 isn’t directly linked to EA1, my view is if it was something regarding the house not the intentions or dealings the seller has with a unrelated EA to EA1. However we do not know if EA1 knew about the intentions the seller has and their dealings with EA2.

EA1 as all EAs want to get paid for their work in marketing the property which further leads me to assume that they are not aware of the contract with EA2 otherwise they would have questioned this with the seller or EA2 or raise it with the OP.