Agent did not disclose material information - anything I can do?

[Nomorediy]

Hi there,

Anyone have a view or experience to share on what to do when an agent hasn't disclosed material information.

I pulled out of a property purchase because it was only at the survey stage that material information (per trading standards for estate agents) was revealed. Broken roof causing internal water damage. It had been painted over before in time for viewings. After I offered there was heavy rain, and luckily that was before the surveyor went in and discovered the main roof and extension roof needed replacing.

The cost of the roof repair alone, per a contractor who did a really extensive quote using drone camera, was going to be around 30k. Add on replastering etc, who knows.

Anyway, I pulled out. I did not exchange contracts so I do not have a negligence claim against the agent, my solicitors advised.

However, the cost of the aborted purchase was quite significant. Almost 1k for survey and legal searches and advice. And the National Trading Standards material information guidance for selling estate agents says a listing - eg on Rightmove - must include additional information about building safety issues, such as damaged roofs (link and extract below).

The agent I dealt with on the aborted purchase has relisted the property at exactly the same guide price and once again not disclosed the roof damage on the online listing. Potentially they are now telling prospective buyers this, but the Trading Standards guidance relates to the actual listing itself.

Anyone have a view?

www.nationaltradingstandards.uk/uploads/Material%20Information%20in%20Property%20Listings%20(Sales)%20v1.0.pdf

What insurance is this? I’m interested for my new purchase.

I don’t understand why sellers don’t have to provide a full survey upfront. I’d have been delighted to for my sale given 500 quid is a drop in the vast ocean of moving costs! Agents take 1.2% of the selling price (can be 10k these days) for putting some badly worded cliches on Rightmove (so much ‘nestling’), make over confident claims about school catchments and get Saturday staff who know nothing of utility about the house to let people in and tell them the house is lovely. Caveat emptor yes, I know, but the system only seems to be helpful for estate agents.

This was the idea with home information packs. Sellers needed to provide a survey as part of the HIP, along with searches, evidence of title and a few others things.

On the face of it seems sensible, but HIPs weren’t popular and the legislation was dropped.

Did you negotiate- we recently sold FIL house and there was some stuff we didn’t know. The buyers got the most detailed survey and then negotiated a price drop with us - they knew what they were buying and the price drop accounted for the work they needed to do.

That still does not constitute what this rule means.

This is not a declarable issue, they have no legal proof of damage/condition and patched literally means fixed.

Rhino homebuying Insurance, they might be more but its the only company I have found... read the terms though of what they cover (its mostly for mortgage issues, gazumping and legal issues with ownership's etc... it doesn't cover you just pulling out of a sale).

Then that is on the seller - as I said normally in these situations price would be negotiated to reflect the work that needs to be done - so a price of 550k maybe a little more would be agreed.

the agent is just that an agent of the seller - unless it is something that is known to be materially unsafe which it isnt

I suspect here the issue is the client - the seller and as the agent is following their wishes there is little you can do - they are not legally obligated to inform although they cannot misrepresent

we still have caveat emptor

and did it get to the TA6 form which does have legal standing rather than estate agents - these shouldn’t misrepresent but certainly are not legally binding - and they can’t because the estate agent only goes on the seller and they aren’t experts

what was the actual issue with the roof - they may need to disclose once an offer is in - and if they don’t the next buyer may have recourse

I don’t get on what basis you think you should

My DS pulled pulled out of a purchase after a poor survey on work that needs BR and for which BR had not been sought. A sale had fallen through before him and he was told it was before survey.

Even though at this point it was known it shouldn't be called a habitable room it was continued to be marketed as a dining room.

Then it sold again....and at 4 weeks fell through .... so I can guess that might have been the same issue.

I do think EAs should not describe rooms as habitable rooms when they know that they do not meet regulations.

In Scotland the seller needs a homebuyers report, this wouldn’t happen in Scotland!

In the kindest way those telling you to chase for compensation have no idea how the buying and selling process works in England.

This is good because it also means the seller is aware of issues before they come to market. That can be a difficult part of negotiation and where a lot of money can be wasted when one side of the transaction just doesn't get it.

Presumable the report gives a price? Or do you still have estate agents in Scotland that do this part of the work?

Yes, but seller wouldn’t budge. You sound like a sensible vendor

Patched means the water damage to internal walls was simply painted over.

Very sensible system in Scotland. Sellers must disclose all information, offers are legally binding.

Yep most are we were all relieved he did a very thorough survey so he was buying it completely aware of all of the issues otherwise we would have felt guilty. Spent years trying to get FIL to sell. Still sold it for more than I thought it was worth but was prime South London location

. Yours wasn’t and that I think it the issue with the house.

The agent is just an agent of the client and is probably very aware the hiuse won’t sell.

but I imagine the seller was very difficult

You can’t go to trading standards because things came up on a building survey. That’s the point of a survey in the uk, houses are sold as seen.

No painted means painted, patched means patched.

Patch means to fix, mend or strengthen something. Patching damage to a roof is not rare at all, in fact most roofing jobs are patching small damage not replacing the whole roof. A patch maybe temporary or permanent but either way it means the issues is to a reasonable extent 'fixed'.

You also don't 'paint' a roof, painting something would highlight it if its not something usually painted.

I don't think you understand the process or the law of these things because you seem very confused about what things mean.

Surveys can sound very scary, even on good houses. Almost all survey will highlight some level of roof issues.

Companies (especially those that give quotes out to non homeowners... double red flag if it was a free quote by any chance) will tell you the utter worst case and exaggerate because they know you are unlikely to be knowledgeable and they want your money. They're not going to tell you its fine are they? there would be nothing in it for them.

"...so I do not have a negligence claim against the agent, my solicitors advised."

There's your answer. Forget it and move on OP.

Anything else is a waste of time and money.

I always thought it was up to the buyer to make their own enquiries before purchase. If there was no evidence of the leak when you purchased, how was the agent doing to know. Have to say £30k seems a massive amount for a roof though. We've had an ongoing leak for years and had ours done last year for £10k, including some partly rotten timbers.

This is exactly why I'd never buy a house without a survey, and exactly why I pay money for a survey- to save me losing more. The survey did its job and saved you a lot of money. That's all there is to it.

OP, don't forget that the estate agent has a contract with the seller only (or are you selling through them). If the seller didn't tell them about the roof, how would they know? Though now they are aware, I do think they should disclose this to any future interested party.