Complaint
This was a complaint concerning non-disclosure of information where the potential buyer, Mr D, alleged that the Agent knew that there was a dispute over the ownership of the parking space at the property but said nothing, resulting in a long drawn out transaction from which Mr D eventually withdrew.
Complaint
Upon discovering that the property had shared ownership, the potential buyer, Mr C, withdrew from the transaction and raised a complaint against the Agent alleging that the property had not been described correctly.
Complaint
Following completion Mr and Mrs B raised a complaint that the Agent had not divulged that the property suffered from severe damp and a leaking boiler despite this information being previously known as a result of a survey carried out by previous potential buyers and from conversations the Agent had held with the neighbour occupying the adjoining property which was also being affected by the problem. Mr and Mrs B also asserted that staff at the Agent’s office had encouraged them to commission a standard home buyer survey which, in the event, did not highlight the damp or boiler issues.
Complaint
On the first day of the tenancy, Mr C, the tenant, found that the boiler was not working and
immediately reported the matter to the Agent, explaining that he was unable to live in the property until the problem was fixed. The Agent advised the landlord straight away and arranged for a contractor to attend the property the same day. However, upon investigating the problem the contractor found traces of a rat infestation. The complications in dealing with the two connected issues eventually led to the landlord agreeing to terminate the tenancy with Mr C being refunded his rent and deposit. However, Mr C considered that the Agent could have done more to prevent the situation arising and promptly complained.
Complaint
After moving into the property, the tenants, Mr and Mrs B, contacted the Agent to advise that they were unable to access the garage. The Agent initially responded telling them where they could find the key. The key was not where they said and upon further questioning at a later date stated that the landlord had informed them that the garage was
not operational and unfit for use. Mr and Mrs B subsequently complained that the property had been incorrectly described to them.
Flying too low?
With CPRs remaining an important topic for all agents, this case study discusses the specific issue of whether flight paths should have been divulged to the buyers.
Complaint
Following their successful purchase, Mr and Mrs D (the Buyers) complained that the Agent had failed to inform them of a proposed development which would impair the view from the property. Mr and Mrs D considered that the Agent was in breach of the Property Misdescriptions Act and Paragraph 4h of the Code of Practice.
Complaint
Following their withdrawal from the transaction, Mr and Mrs A (the Potential Buyers) complained that the Agent had not divulged the full details of a local farmer’s tenancy claim for occupancy of all of the land attached to the property. Mr and Mrs A said the sales particulars had not included any reference to the dispute, yet the Agent had been aware of the problem six months before they began marketing the property as the farmer’s representative had written to the Agent setting out the claim. The Potential Buyers also asserted that the Agent had failed to divulge the extent of the land that the farmer was
claiming a tenancy on when they asked the Agent a direct question during the first viewing. The Agent acknowledged that they had received the letter, but said that, as it was unclear whether the farmer had any valid claim on the land, they did not include any details in the sales particulars.
