ESTATE AGENTS MISREPRESENTATION

Smalltownhypocrite

user1977 said:

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.

Ok but thats buyer beware, any sale can fall through before exchange.

The house I was buying was put up for sale by someone with no right to sell it (owner was dead, they tried and failed probate several times). It eventually was repossessed by the bank and they cancelled the sale because they thought they could get more. It failed to sell for a high price at auction twice and nearly a year later finally sold for nearly 30k less than our original offer (baring in mind it was under 100k to begin with)... I don't get my money back that I lost or the YEAR of stress I was put through either. Sucks but thats how the system works.

user1977

Smalltownhypocrite said:

user1977 said:

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.

Ok but thats buyer beware, any sale can fall through before exchange.

Yes, but it's a cost they would have avoided if it wasn't for the EA's (alleged) misrepresentation.

pinkshoes

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

Ok, so what evidence do you have?

Does the house listing state "property is currently unoccupied and sold with no onwards chain"?

Do you have in writing from the EA stating that the property is chain free and currently unoccupied?


When you viewed,  the water was turned off and fridge open - was the house completely empty?

If you have solid evidence in writing that it was unoccupied with no chain then yes you have a case for misrepresentation.

If you relied on information given in the viewing then it's likely the EA showing you around won't have know this, so need to come up with a less expensive plan BB.moving without having written confirmation or even an exchange in place was risky.

MEM62

Suebedoo2 said:

Herzlos - we have been misled from the outset about the chain and the seller being in a property that we were led to believe was vacant

Vacant does not mean that there is no chain.  

Suebedoo2

Thanks Sheramber for clarifying for anyone.  Being told it was nuts to move out was not exactly helpful.   We put an offer in for the new house on the understanding that it was unoccupied and therefore there was no chain because we knew that the more efficient scottish system would mean that we had less time to complete in England.  We put the offer in for this property in April so we held out until 1 July in Scotland which was as long as we could do.  The estate agents and solicitor in England were fully aware of our circumstances and the need for speed but the estate agents omitted to tell me about the chain until I complained again on 8 July.  I would add that I have moved a number of times and one of the moves was from England to Scotland so I am fully aware of both systems.

MeteredOut

Suebedoo2 said:

Thanks Sheramber for clarifying for anyone.  Being told it was nuts to move out was not exactly helpful.   We put an offer in for the new house on the understanding that it was unoccupied and therefore there was no chain because we knew that the more efficient scottish system would mean that we had less time to complete in England.  We put the offer in for this property in April so we held out until 1 July in Scotland which was as long as we could do.  The estate agents and solicitor in England were fully aware of our circumstances and the need for speed but the estate agents omitted to tell me about the chain until I complained again on 8 July.  I would add that I have moved a number of times and one of the moves was from England to Scotland so I am fully aware of both systems.

Did you specifically ask the EA if there was a chain and they said no? As stated previously, unoccupied does not mean no chain.

I think you're going to have a hard time proving any wrongdoing by the EA here.

Smalltownhypocrite

Suebedoo2 said:

Thanks Sheramber for clarifying for anyone.  Being told it was nuts to move out was not exactly helpful.   We put an offer in for the new house on the understanding that it was unoccupied and therefore there was no chain because we knew that the more efficient scottish system would mean that we had less time to complete in England.  We put the offer in for this property in April so we held out until 1 July in Scotland which was as long as we could do.  The estate agents and solicitor in England were fully aware of our circumstances and the need for speed but the estate agents omitted to tell me about the chain until I complained again on 8 July.  I would add that I have moved a number of times and one of the moves was from England to Scotland so I am fully aware of both systems.

But you don't actually have a legal to stand on, until exchange there is ZERO legal contract.

You moved when you DIDN'T have a house to move to, your circumstance does not matter to the EA, solicitor, seller or courts. Nothing illegal has happened, you made a lot of ASSUMPTIONS and misunderstood the laws.

pinkshoes

Suebedoo2 said:

Thanks Sheramber for clarifying for anyone.  Being told it was nuts to move out was not exactly helpful.   We put an offer in for the new house on the understanding that it was unoccupied and therefore there was no chain because we knew that the more efficient scottish system would mean that we had less time to complete in England.  We put the offer in for this property in April so we held out until 1 July in Scotland which was as long as we could do.  The estate agents and solicitor in England were fully aware of our circumstances and the need for speed but the estate agents omitted to tell me about the chain until I complained again on 8 July.  I would add that I have moved a number of times and one of the moves was from England to Scotland so I am fully aware of both systems.

As above, can you please clarify the bit in bold. What do you actually mean by that?

Did the house listing state "property is currently unoccupied and sold with no onwards chain"?

Do you have in writing from the EA stating that the property is chain free and currently unoccupied?

An "understanding that" implies that it was suggested but not verified, in which case you really need to focus on finding some sensibly priced accommodation for now until you can exchange/complete as you're wasting your time and energy trying to recoup these costs if you have nothing in writing.

Albermarle

 We put an offer in for the new house on the understanding that it was unoccupied and therefore there was no chain.

'Therefore there was no chain' should maybe be replaced by ' so we wrongly assumed there was no chain' ?

Jumblebumble

user1977 said:

Smalltownhypocrite said:

user1977 said:

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.

Ok but thats buyer beware, any sale can fall through before exchange.

Yes, but it's a cost they would have avoided if it wasn't for the EA's (alleged) misrepresentation.

You have no idea whatever whether exchange would or would not have happened by now regardless of any  supposed misrepresentation
EG

The seller could have accepted someone else's higher offer
The seller could have changed their mind about selling