Estate Agent Complaint
Discussion
Mojooo said:
The phrase caveat emptor hardly applies in Britain anymore.
The EA whilst maybe acting for a seller has a legal duty not to mislead consuemrs - this is governed by UK law under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 which can make misleading practices a crime as well as giving consumers civil remedies. In addition these rights can be neforced by the Ombudsman.
Someone has hit the nail on the head when they said this could put the EA in a difficult position as they may have to reveal lots of negative things about a property - but ultimatley the general law is there to protect buyers.
The material is undoubtedly 'material information' as it woudl quite clearly affect a consumers 'transactional ecision' - which could be a whole raft of things including the decision to buy or even the decision to incur other purchasing costs.
The real issue is whether the EA knew and whether they hid it.
If they now know and have failed to mention it then their current advert could constitute an offence - this doesn;t affect you directly but there is a possibilty of prosecution of Trading Standards are informed.
http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/property/when_selling_my_...
edited - just read OPs latest post - IMO it should go into the ad - even phoning the EA could be a transactional decision! I suspect they will hold off until someone is well into the buying process.
Mojooo, do you say the above from a normal mans perspective or that of a specialist in this area?The EA whilst maybe acting for a seller has a legal duty not to mislead consuemrs - this is governed by UK law under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 which can make misleading practices a crime as well as giving consumers civil remedies. In addition these rights can be neforced by the Ombudsman.
Someone has hit the nail on the head when they said this could put the EA in a difficult position as they may have to reveal lots of negative things about a property - but ultimatley the general law is there to protect buyers.
The material is undoubtedly 'material information' as it woudl quite clearly affect a consumers 'transactional ecision' - which could be a whole raft of things including the decision to buy or even the decision to incur other purchasing costs.
The real issue is whether the EA knew and whether they hid it.
If they now know and have failed to mention it then their current advert could constitute an offence - this doesn;t affect you directly but there is a possibilty of prosecution of Trading Standards are informed.
http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/property/when_selling_my_...
edited - just read OPs latest post - IMO it should go into the ad - even phoning the EA could be a transactional decision! I suspect they will hold off until someone is well into the buying process.
Edited by Mojooo on Saturday 22 October 01:31
I only ask because I work in the industry and if that is from a knowledgeable legal perspective it is very interesting.
Mojooo said:
The phrase caveat emptor hardly applies in Britain anymore.
The EA whilst maybe acting for a seller has a legal duty not to mislead consuemrs - this is governed by UK law under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 which can make misleading practices a crime as well as giving consumers civil remedies. In addition these rights can be neforced by the Ombudsman.
Someone has hit the nail on the head when they said this could put the EA in a difficult position as they may have to reveal lots of negative things about a property - but ultimatley the general law is there to protect buyers.
The material is undoubtedly 'material information' as it woudl quite clearly affect a consumers 'transactional ecision' - which could be a whole raft of things including the decision to buy or even the decision to incur other purchasing costs.
The real issue is whether the EA knew and whether they hid it.
If they now know and have failed to mention it then their current advert could constitute an offence - this doesn;t affect you directly but there is a possibilty of prosecution of Trading Standards are informed.
http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/property/when_selling_my_...
edited - just read OPs latest post - IMO it should go into the ad - even phoning the EA could be a transactional decision! I suspect they will hold off until someone is well into the buying process.
I'm surprised the Property Ombudsman and the courts are not rammed full of claims and complaints, going on that link.The EA whilst maybe acting for a seller has a legal duty not to mislead consuemrs - this is governed by UK law under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 which can make misleading practices a crime as well as giving consumers civil remedies. In addition these rights can be neforced by the Ombudsman.
Someone has hit the nail on the head when they said this could put the EA in a difficult position as they may have to reveal lots of negative things about a property - but ultimatley the general law is there to protect buyers.
The material is undoubtedly 'material information' as it woudl quite clearly affect a consumers 'transactional ecision' - which could be a whole raft of things including the decision to buy or even the decision to incur other purchasing costs.
The real issue is whether the EA knew and whether they hid it.
If they now know and have failed to mention it then their current advert could constitute an offence - this doesn;t affect you directly but there is a possibilty of prosecution of Trading Standards are informed.
http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/property/when_selling_my_...
edited - just read OPs latest post - IMO it should go into the ad - even phoning the EA could be a transactional decision! I suspect they will hold off until someone is well into the buying process.
Edited by Mojooo on Saturday 22 October 01:31
Almost every house on Rightmove has pictures that are taken with wide angle lenses, touched up in photoshop or similar or had light levels altered or taken from an angle to disguise how close to neighbours or other buidings etc.
All of which is, essentially, misrepresenting the property.
Slagathore said:
I'm surprised the Property Ombudsman and the courts are not rammed full of claims and complaints, going on that link.
Almost every house on Rightmove has pictures that are taken with wide angle lenses, touched up in photoshop or similar or had light levels altered or taken from an angle to disguise how close to neighbours or other buidings etc.
All of which is, essentially, misrepresenting the property.
Because, of course, lots of people buy houses without actually seeing them in person, don't they?Almost every house on Rightmove has pictures that are taken with wide angle lenses, touched up in photoshop or similar or had light levels altered or taken from an angle to disguise how close to neighbours or other buidings etc.
All of which is, essentially, misrepresenting the property.
The job of the photos is to get you to go and look, no more. If people go and look and find the reality so far from the photos that they're miffed, then the EA will hear that directly.
Basically, as an Agent, we can now be prosecuted for the things we say and for the things we dont say.
With the Agent offering to refund you, i suspect that the Developer has told them about the Highways project, and they ommitted to mention it to you. Other wise i think they would fight harder...
With the Agent offering to refund you, i suspect that the Developer has told them about the Highways project, and they ommitted to mention it to you. Other wise i think they would fight harder...
TooMany2cvs said:
Because, of course, lots of people buy houses without actually seeing them in person, don't they?
The job of the photos is to get you to go and look, no more. If people go and look and find the reality so far from the photos that they're miffed, then the EA will hear that directly.
Well, obviously, but the gist of that article linked earlier was that agents and sellers need to disclose all information known about the property and be honest with it and not tell white lies and try and misrepresent the property. It also says in that article about affecting the decision to view the property as well.The job of the photos is to get you to go and look, no more. If people go and look and find the reality so far from the photos that they're miffed, then the EA will hear that directly.
So the advertising material is strike 1, really, as that's the first thing you see when making a decision to view. You'd be pretty pissed off if you travelled to another city etc for a viewing and wasted time off work and fuel to get there and it's nothing like it is in their photoshopped/altered pictures.
I bet most agents get a lot of - "oh, it doesn't look as good now as it does in the pictures, etc etc.
You have to remember that not everyone will go on Streetview and check the property and the road out, and how many people look at a floorplan with dimensions on and then turn up at the viewing and come out with the usual - "the 3rd bedroom is a lot smaller than we were expecting, so it's a no from us".
The problem is time wasters on both sides! Agents desperate to get viewings so they can tell the vendor what a fantastic job they are doing, and obviously to try and sell it, and then people looking when they really haven't the means or any intention to even buy.
Most people see the property on Rightmove, book a viewing and then start doing some research, by the time the viewing comes round, they've probably done a bit of research and decided already that it's not for them, but there's no harm in 'viewing lots of houses to see what the market is like'.
FrankAbagnale said:
Mojooo, do you say the above from a normal mans perspective or that of a specialist in this area?
I only ask because I work in the industry and if that is from a knowledgeable legal perspective it is very interesting.
I spose I am specialist in the sense that I worked for a regulatory body that enforced that law.I only ask because I work in the industry and if that is from a knowledgeable legal perspective it is very interesting.
BTW the law came into force in May 2008 - it has been around for 8 years now and so is not new. Contrary to what many EA think, it did not come into force when the PMA 90 was repealed - they rang alongside eachother since 2008.
The main reason for starting this thread was that I had already made a complaint to the estate agent, but although they had offered a 'goodwill gesture' I didn't think they had treated this situation seriously enough and were either not aware of their obligations to buyers or simply didn't care about them.
I wanted advice on whether anyone else had faced a similar issue, and whether I should pursue it further, or just take the money being offered.
It has certainly sparked an interesting debate and a fair bit of finger pointing about whether we did our own due diligence on buying the Barn! Not to mention the actions of Estate Agents and their obligations...
I just wanted to update this thread again - after their noncommittal first reply on Wednesday (received just before I wrote the initial post, I think!), even though it included an apparently 'generous' goodwill gesture, I wrote back to give them an opportunity to review their stance, giving a couple of days to do so. They did email back on Friday and we were clearly much more aligned on what constitutes 'material information', which was as close as I was going to get to an admission / apology. I had told them their offer (£1500) didn't go far enough to cover my costs, so I spoke to mortgage broker and solicitor on Friday to draw up a full breakdown of my costs incurred - mortgage broker, property valuation, solicitors fees for the purchase and the linked sale of our own property. Without embellishment, I submitted these costs (£3591) yesterday...
6:20am today, the Director of the underlying estate agent emailed to increase their goodwill gesture from £1500 to £3591 in full and final settlement - so I guess they really don't want this to go to the ombudsman and want to close the matter as much as I do. Along with their previous commitment to ensure other prospective purchasers would be made aware of the road upgrades (and invited to make their own minds up on the matter) I think this has ended with a positive outcome.
Still a bit gutted not to be moving there but that's life. I wouldn't have offered if we'd known about the road, so at least we're back financially to the same position we were before.
Moral of the story - Estate Agents have to abide by the rules!
I wanted advice on whether anyone else had faced a similar issue, and whether I should pursue it further, or just take the money being offered.
It has certainly sparked an interesting debate and a fair bit of finger pointing about whether we did our own due diligence on buying the Barn! Not to mention the actions of Estate Agents and their obligations...
I just wanted to update this thread again - after their noncommittal first reply on Wednesday (received just before I wrote the initial post, I think!), even though it included an apparently 'generous' goodwill gesture, I wrote back to give them an opportunity to review their stance, giving a couple of days to do so. They did email back on Friday and we were clearly much more aligned on what constitutes 'material information', which was as close as I was going to get to an admission / apology. I had told them their offer (£1500) didn't go far enough to cover my costs, so I spoke to mortgage broker and solicitor on Friday to draw up a full breakdown of my costs incurred - mortgage broker, property valuation, solicitors fees for the purchase and the linked sale of our own property. Without embellishment, I submitted these costs (£3591) yesterday...
6:20am today, the Director of the underlying estate agent emailed to increase their goodwill gesture from £1500 to £3591 in full and final settlement - so I guess they really don't want this to go to the ombudsman and want to close the matter as much as I do. Along with their previous commitment to ensure other prospective purchasers would be made aware of the road upgrades (and invited to make their own minds up on the matter) I think this has ended with a positive outcome.
Still a bit gutted not to be moving there but that's life. I wouldn't have offered if we'd known about the road, so at least we're back financially to the same position we were before.
Moral of the story - Estate Agents have to abide by the rules!
Has been an interesting thread indeed. Well done for getting your costs covered, i'm still very surprised the agent offered any gesture at all.
I think once they made a first offer they hung themselves somewhat.
I'm sure you'll find something better without the complication of a major road being built in your garden in the near future!
I think once they made a first offer they hung themselves somewhat.
I'm sure you'll find something better without the complication of a major road being built in your garden in the near future!
FrankAbagnale said:
Has been an interesting thread indeed. Well done for getting your costs covered, i'm still very surprised the agent offered any gesture at all.
I think once they made a first offer they hung themselves somewhat.
I'm sure you'll find something better without the complication of a major road being built in your garden in the near future!
Thanks Frank. The tone of their correspondence changed completely, so I'm guessing they took some external advice. Either that, or the initial response was a 'hope this goes away quickly and without admitting anything' - either way I got the result I wanted.I think once they made a first offer they hung themselves somewhat.
I'm sure you'll find something better without the complication of a major road being built in your garden in the near future!
Already looking at something 'better' and an interim move to a lovely market town to experience a different life for a year, so a new chapter all round!
A very interesting thread indeed Tim. I try to keep up with the latest legislation and this thread has made me re-visit my due diligence.
I would prefer you had taken it to the Ombudsman, I can't help thinking there is more to this though, especially the way they have caved. I would have taken it to the Ombudsman myself as the agent in this scenario.
Well done for getting a result though.
I would prefer you had taken it to the Ombudsman, I can't help thinking there is more to this though, especially the way they have caved. I would have taken it to the Ombudsman myself as the agent in this scenario.
Well done for getting a result though.
digimeistter said:
A very interesting thread indeed Tim. I try to keep up with the latest legislation and this thread has made me re-visit my due diligence.
I would prefer you had taken it to the Ombudsman, I can't help thinking there is more to this though, especially the way they have caved. I would have taken it to the Ombudsman myself as the agent in this scenario.
Well done for getting a result though.
Ombudsman would have been interesting - there have been similar claims settled, as well as some Trading Standards have taken to court. But the awards seem relatively low (maybe these people hadn't incurred the same level of costs?) - and ultimately I had both the things I was after - an admission that they should have told me (I got as close to that as I could) plus my costs covered so there was no gain for me to go to the ombudsman as the only thing extra would have been 'compensation' and I wasn't after that.I would prefer you had taken it to the Ombudsman, I can't help thinking there is more to this though, especially the way they have caved. I would have taken it to the Ombudsman myself as the agent in this scenario.
Well done for getting a result though.
Cheque's is the post, I should have it tomorrow I guess.
Butter Face said:
This the place?
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...
Looks great, but from some quick googling the roadworks would put me off too. Shame!!
Take the money and run I'd say.
If that's the house you've had a lucky escape new road or no new road - it's awful, truly awfulhttp://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...
Looks great, but from some quick googling the roadworks would put me off too. Shame!!
Take the money and run I'd say.
ClaphamGT3 said:
Butter Face said:
This the place?
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...
Looks great, but from some quick googling the roadworks would put me off too. Shame!!
Take the money and run I'd say.
If that's the house you've had a lucky escape new road or no new road - it's awful, truly awfulhttp://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prope...
Looks great, but from some quick googling the roadworks would put me off too. Shame!!
Take the money and run I'd say.
I don't like it a million quid, though...
Probably don't want to get drawn into some sort of 'internet argument' about taste - suffice to say we liked it, it suited us, and had some major design plans for the interior, landscape plans for the garden, plus the building of a large 'L' shaped garage block with 2-bedroom 'apartment' as a granny flat / annexe.
It does look a bit anodyne on the photos but it is a nice place to be inside. Finished to a good standard (at least it would have been with some snagging) And at 4500+ sq ft with 1+ acre, it actually wasn't too bad value for the snip under £1m we had offered. £220 per square foot isn't too bad - and it was going to gain fitted wardrobes in all the bedrooms, the wooden flooring continued throughout the 2 remaining downstairs rooms plus all of upstairs, the window removed in the bathroom and fitted with a larger one, a roof window put in as well, the smaller velux windows replaced with the same sized ones as in the hall, etc. etc. Then our own style applied to make it 'home'.
I don't suppose you'd be that keen on what we've sold (for more than we were paying for this barn) either - but each to their own!
It does look a bit anodyne on the photos but it is a nice place to be inside. Finished to a good standard (at least it would have been with some snagging) And at 4500+ sq ft with 1+ acre, it actually wasn't too bad value for the snip under £1m we had offered. £220 per square foot isn't too bad - and it was going to gain fitted wardrobes in all the bedrooms, the wooden flooring continued throughout the 2 remaining downstairs rooms plus all of upstairs, the window removed in the bathroom and fitted with a larger one, a roof window put in as well, the smaller velux windows replaced with the same sized ones as in the hall, etc. etc. Then our own style applied to make it 'home'.
I don't suppose you'd be that keen on what we've sold (for more than we were paying for this barn) either - but each to their own!
Would suggest you ask solicitor about what additional searches are available. The usual pack would have local, water and environmental. Some parts of the UK require other searches such as for mines and Commons. That said if you have specific concerns the there are other specialist searches available, including speculative ones from poachers turned gamekeepers.
There is one thing above all the I tell every client with a view, especially nice fields, and that's that if they like the view the only way to guarantee it will not change is to own it, and even that might be hard over time...
There is one thing above all the I tell every client with a view, especially nice fields, and that's that if they like the view the only way to guarantee it will not change is to own it, and even that might be hard over time...
timetex said:
Probably don't want to get drawn into some sort of 'internet argument' about taste - suffice to say we liked it, it suited us, and had some major design plans for the interior, landscape plans for the garden, plus the building of a large 'L' shaped garage block with 2-bedroom 'apartment' as a granny flat / annexe.
It does look a bit anodyne on the photos but it is a nice place to be inside. Finished to a good standard (at least it would have been with some snagging) And at 4500+ sq ft with 1+ acre, it actually wasn't too bad value for the snip under £1m we had offered. £220 per square foot isn't too bad - and it was going to gain fitted wardrobes in all the bedrooms, the wooden flooring continued throughout the 2 remaining downstairs rooms plus all of upstairs, the window removed in the bathroom and fitted with a larger one, a roof window put in as well, the smaller velux windows replaced with the same sized ones as in the hall, etc. etc. Then our own style applied to make it 'home'.
I don't suppose you'd be that keen on what we've sold (for more than we were paying for this barn) either - but each to their own!
I would never presume to question anyone's taste or choice - each to their own - but that is appallingly designed, specified and executedIt does look a bit anodyne on the photos but it is a nice place to be inside. Finished to a good standard (at least it would have been with some snagging) And at 4500+ sq ft with 1+ acre, it actually wasn't too bad value for the snip under £1m we had offered. £220 per square foot isn't too bad - and it was going to gain fitted wardrobes in all the bedrooms, the wooden flooring continued throughout the 2 remaining downstairs rooms plus all of upstairs, the window removed in the bathroom and fitted with a larger one, a roof window put in as well, the smaller velux windows replaced with the same sized ones as in the hall, etc. etc. Then our own style applied to make it 'home'.
I don't suppose you'd be that keen on what we've sold (for more than we were paying for this barn) either - but each to their own!
link to advert said:
This property has been removed by the agent. It may be sold or temporarily removed from the market.
I rather think the current owner(s) will be less pleased than the OP. That road project will put a crimp on the asking price and deter many buyers just as the OP has been.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff