ESTATE AGENTS MISREPRESENTATION

user1977

Jumblebumble said:

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

The OP's argument would be that they wouldn't have spent any time/money considering this property in the first place (but I agree with the other comments they haven't so far made a great case for misrepresentation)

sheramber

We bought a house in England with no chain.

Our seller already had the keys to their next house. 

The offer was accepted in March and we didn’t exchange contracts until the end of July. 

We had sold in Scotland and were living with family. 

Our solicitor said everything that could go wrong did go wrong, including a problem arising on the afternoon before our furniture arrived from storage in Scotland.

It was already on the road. 

GDB2222

Any material misrepresentation is banned by law and under the ombudsman code of practice. It doesn't matter whether that was in writing or orally, although it's obviously easier to prove if it was in writing.  

In seeking compensation, the op will have to show that the misrepresentation led to their losses. 
 
The main question I'd be asking myself, if in the OP's shoes, is whether to complain to the agent now, or wait until after exchange of contracts? 
 

ExEstateAgent

I don't think the OP has any recourse. Even if they were told that there was no chain things can change. The vendor may have changed their mind about what they were doing next. They could even decide not to move at all. Until exchange there's no liability on either party (unless a specific legally enforceable agreement was drawn up and penalties agreed in advance). 

eddddy

ExEstateAgent said:

I don't think the OP has any recourse. Even if they were told that there was no chain things can change. The vendor may have changed their mind about what they were doing next. They could even decide not to move at all. Until exchange there's no liability on either party (unless a specific legally enforceable agreement was drawn up and penalties agreed in advance). 

Yes - things can change - but that's not the point (and it's not a defence to making misleading statements).

• If the estate agent said "there will be no chain", when the estate agent knew (or should have known) that there was likely to be a chain - the estate agent broke consumer protection laws.

• Or if the estate agent said "there will be no chain", and the seller later said to the estate agent "I've changed my mind, I'm now in a chain" and the estate agent didn't tell the buyer - again the estate agent has (probably) broken consumer protection laws

Obviously, the challenge for the OP is proving what the estate agent said and what the estate agent knew (or should have known).

But realistically, any estate agent would ask a seller if they planned to sell and buy at the same time.

The Property Ombudsman would ask for a copy of the estate agent's files. So if the files show that the seller told the estate agent that they intended to sell and buy at the same time - that would be strong evidence in the OP's favour.

But if the files show that the seller told the estate agent that they weren't selling and buying at the same time - the estate agent might be off the hook.

ExEstateAgent

eddddy said:

ExEstateAgent said:

I don't think the OP has any recourse. Even if they were told that there was no chain things can change. The vendor may have changed their mind about what they were doing next. They could even decide not to move at all. Until exchange there's no liability on either party (unless a specific legally enforceable agreement was drawn up and penalties agreed in advance). 

Yes - things can change - but that's not the point (and it's not a defence to making misleading statements).

• If the estate agent said "there will be no chain", when the estate agent knew (or should have known) that there was likely to be a chain - the estate agent broke consumer protection laws.

• Or if the estate agent said "there will be no chain", and the seller later said to the estate agent "I've changed my mind, I'm now in a chain" and the estate agent didn't tell the buyer - again the estate agent has (probably) broken consumer protection laws

Obviously, the challenge for the OP is proving what the estate agent said and what the estate agent knew (or should have known).

But realistically, any estate agent would ask a seller if they planned to sell and buy at the same time.

The Property Ombudsman would ask for a copy of the estate agent's files. So if the files show that the seller told the estate agent that they intended to sell and buy at the same time - that would be strong evidence in the OP's favour.

But if the files show that the seller told the estate agent that they weren't selling and buying at the same time - the estate agent might be off the hook.

So, we need the OP to clarify exactly what they were told, at the moment it's just guessing. 

GDB2222

ExEstateAgent said:

eddddy said:

ExEstateAgent said:

I don't think the OP has any recourse. Even if they were told that there was no chain things can change. The vendor may have changed their mind about what they were doing next. They could even decide not to move at all. Until exchange there's no liability on either party (unless a specific legally enforceable agreement was drawn up and penalties agreed in advance). 

Yes - things can change - but that's not the point (and it's not a defence to making misleading statements).

• If the estate agent said "there will be no chain", when the estate agent knew (or should have known) that there was likely to be a chain - the estate agent broke consumer protection laws.

• Or if the estate agent said "there will be no chain", and the seller later said to the estate agent "I've changed my mind, I'm now in a chain" and the estate agent didn't tell the buyer - again the estate agent has (probably) broken consumer protection laws

Obviously, the challenge for the OP is proving what the estate agent said and what the estate agent knew (or should have known).

But realistically, any estate agent would ask a seller if they planned to sell and buy at the same time.

The Property Ombudsman would ask for a copy of the estate agent's files. So if the files show that the seller told the estate agent that they intended to sell and buy at the same time - that would be strong evidence in the OP's favour.

But if the files show that the seller told the estate agent that they weren't selling and buying at the same time - the estate agent might be off the hook.

So, we need the OP to clarify exactly what they were told, at the moment it's just guessing. 

I imagine the op is wondering why he bothered to raise the issue on this forum in the first place. The, umm, diversity of views on what is actually well established law has not helped him in the slightest. He has no obligation to provide any further information, and frankly I don’t blame him for not doing so. 

My apologies if I have us3d the wrong pronouns.

ExEstateAgent

GDB2222 said:

ExEstateAgent said:

eddddy said:

ExEstateAgent said:

I don't think the OP has any recourse. Even if they were told that there was no chain things can change. The vendor may have changed their mind about what they were doing next. They could even decide not to move at all. Until exchange there's no liability on either party (unless a specific legally enforceable agreement was drawn up and penalties agreed in advance). 

Yes - things can change - but that's not the point (and it's not a defence to making misleading statements).

• If the estate agent said "there will be no chain", when the estate agent knew (or should have known) that there was likely to be a chain - the estate agent broke consumer protection laws.

• Or if the estate agent said "there will be no chain", and the seller later said to the estate agent "I've changed my mind, I'm now in a chain" and the estate agent didn't tell the buyer - again the estate agent has (probably) broken consumer protection laws

Obviously, the challenge for the OP is proving what the estate agent said and what the estate agent knew (or should have known).

But realistically, any estate agent would ask a seller if they planned to sell and buy at the same time.

The Property Ombudsman would ask for a copy of the estate agent's files. So if the files show that the seller told the estate agent that they intended to sell and buy at the same time - that would be strong evidence in the OP's favour.

But if the files show that the seller told the estate agent that they weren't selling and buying at the same time - the estate agent might be off the hook.

So, we need the OP to clarify exactly what they were told, at the moment it's just guessing. 

I imagine the op is wondering why he bothered to raise the issue on this forum in the first place. The, umm, diversity of views on what is actually well established law has not helped him in the slightest. He has no obligation to provide any further information, and frankly I don’t blame him for not doing so. 

My apologies if I have us3d the wrong pronouns.

The OP posted a question but without clarfication of the facts nobody can give them an accurate answer. It's all based on assumptions or what if's. Nothing is 'well established law' here. 

GDB2222

The law is extremely clear.

You are saying that you don't have enough facts, so you don't know whether the law applies. But, the OP has no duty to satisfy your curiosity. In the end, they just need to satisfy a judge or the ombudsman.

GDB2222

By the way, this is what TPOS says:

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.