ESTATE AGENTS MISREPRESENTATION

Suebedoo2

We are in a contract with the solicitor 

Suebedoo2

I am guessing one or both of these may be relevant - 

Misrepresentation Act 1967: Applies when a false statement induces someone to enter into a contract. If you haven’t exchanged contracts, you may still have a claim if you incurred losses based on misleading information that influenced your decision to proceed.

Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs): These regulations apply to estate agents and prohibit misleading actions or omissions. They’re enforceable even if no contract is ultimately signed

Albermarle

If you fight it then there might be some argument about what 'unoccupied' means and/or exactly what the agent said
For example a house could be unoccupied, but the owner could still be in a chain.

Did the agent explicitly say that the owner was just selling the property, and not looking to buy another one?

gwynlas

I'm sorry  that you are effectively homeless at the moment but did neither of you take advice on the purchasing of property in England?

Are you using your Scottish solicitor for both sale and subsequent purchase?

Even if the property you are buying was in fact not liived in at the time you saw it there would be no reason under English conditions that this would lead to a quicker purchase for yourself. Everything hinges on exchange of contracts between buyer and seller who on exchange will have agreed through their solicitors a date for completion usually with next four weeks.

GDB2222

The estate agent will be a member of one of the ombudsman schemes. You can raise a complaint with the agent, and if you're unhappy with their response, you can take it to the ombudsman. That doesn't depend on your rights under law, but on the ombudsman's code of practice. 

One of the main ombudsmen is TPOS, and you can see their code of practice on this page.

https://www.tpos.co.uk/codes-of-practice


Obviously, there are evidential issues. It helps if the agents lied in writing!

There's also the issue of whether your losses are a direct consequence of the lies. In England, even if the property had been vacant, there's no guarantee the seller would have sold to you. Good luck!

Smalltownhypocrite

Suebedoo2 said:

We are in a contract with the solicitor 

What contract?

So you SSTC right... that means 'Sold Subject to Contract' meaning its not sold until you have exchanged.

If you have not exchanged contracts you have zero entitlement to the house you have just made an offer and had it accepted pending the contract which comes usually after all the checks and surveys. It was nuts to move before you actually exchanged and where legally buying the house. 

The solicitor has no entitlement to the house either so your comment that you have a contract with them makes no sense, they don't own the house. If you have not exchanged you do not in fact have any legal contract, you might have memorandums, you might have signed terms, you might have even have reviewed fixtures and fitting forms and signed a contract that is being held with your solicitor (I did weeks before exchange) but until it is EXCHANGED with the seller its not a legal contract just a piece of paper one side signed.

GDB2222

Suebedoo2 said:

I am guessing one or both of these may be relevant - 

Misrepresentation Act 1967: Applies when a false statement induces someone to enter into a contract. If you haven’t exchanged contracts, you may still have a claim if you incurred losses based on misleading information that influenced your decision to proceed.

Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs): These regulations apply to estate agents and prohibit misleading actions or omissions. They’re enforceable even if no contract is ultimately signed

whilst I agree with you, it is probably less stressful to go through the ombudsman. You can still sue after that if you don’t like the outcome. 

Can I ask whether you have sued before as a litigant in person? I don’t think your claim would be big enough to make it worth engaging a solicitor, as you would not be awarded costs. 

user1977

gwynlas said:

I'm sorry  that you are effectively homeless at the moment but did neither of you take advice on the purchasing of property in England?

Are you using your Scottish solicitor for both sale and subsequent purchase?

Highly unlikely that they've found somebody dual-qualified and doing residential conveyancing.

Not sure though what the OP means by "the Scottish laws" - there is as a matter of common practice a swifter timeline for sales/purchases in Scotland compared to England, but not because of any fundamental legal difference, and it's feasible to juggle a cross-border move.

user1977

Smalltownhypocrite said:

Suebedoo2 said:

We are in a contract with the solicitor 

What contract?

The solicitor has no entitlement to the house either so your comment that you have a contract with them makes no sense, they don't own the house.

I suspect the OP means that they have engaged the solicitor and are contractually required to pay their fees for the work done to date even if the purchase is aborted.

sheramber

In Scotland the sake is final when you both have signed missives., this means missives have concluded.

Entry date is agreed by both parties at that time.

It is generally expected in Scotland that entry will be soon after  concluding. 

This is normally conducted in a much shorter timescale than England. 

 

when I bought my  current house entry was in 4 weeks.   My seller had an entry dates for their next house in 4 weeks. 

Longer entry dates can be agreed but it is common  in Scotland to sell before you buy so the timeline is set.

You don’t get chains taking months to complete.