What SHOULD an estate agent know

allibastor

Hi All,

I have had an issue with buying a house recently but have gotten through the legal channels and have found the problem.

The house I am buying has been mortgaged to the hilt and the seller is up to his eyes in debt. The house is a forced sale by the bank but the owner is suffering depression and is now using any excuse to not sign over any property.

When viewing the house I specifically asked the EA if there was any issue with buying the house and was told no, But my legal advise said the agent should have known the situation with the house and the bank.

Am I right to ask the agent why he didn't know, or else didn't disclose this?
I know it will not help with the buying of the house now, but feel annoyed that it was allowed to go on this long.

TheDriver

he lied because its not legally binding information and he wanted you to commit to the sale in some way so you will wait it out. Asking him will get an answer you would expect from them. Put it down to a learning experience and pull out.

I have asked very specific questions of EAs and the lies are gas. Is this timber framed or block built? for some reason its always block built even if its obvious its timber frame. Financial problems? Never sir, never. Bank sale? That means it can be done quickly..................etc etc etc

allibastor

Should the EA not be bound by some rules then on what they can or cant say.

Like when you buy a car you can test drive it, but to buy a house you only look at it and have it surveyed, but some other issues which never come up are being kept out of the light until very last min.

JBG2011

This unfortunately is par for the course and regretfully the standard of honesty and basic professionalism amongst estate agents is not what it should be. This is of course a broad generalisation and while there are some good ones, many will basically tell you anything in order to commit to buying a house. They can get away with it as any deal you make will be subject to contract and there's no legal recourse against them. In fairness to estate agents standards probably have improved slightly since the bad days of the boom when most houses effectively sold themselves with with bar minimum of input from agents.

I've been dealing with agents for a long time now and day in and day out I continue to hear outrageous stories from ordinary people about agents. The most common complaint is that of dishonesty but you still hear a lot of stories of agents being totally unprepared coming into viewings, knowing little or nothing about the house they're selling, which is extraordinary given the difficulties the market has experienced this past 6 years.

antoinolachtnai

You aren't buying goods. The estate agent isn't working for you. The estate agent's paperwork will clearly state this and state that you are to confirm all matters for yourself.

That is the structure of our market.

If it is important to get the best information about the property you are buying in advance of making a commitment, you should hire your own buyer's agent and get them to make queries and negotiate on your behalf. This will probably cost you around 1 or 2 percent of the property value.

johndaman66

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If it is important to get the best information about the property you are buying in advance of making a commitment, you should hire your own buyer's agent and get them to make queries and negotiate on your behalf. This will probably cost you around 1 or 2 percent of the property value.

I think thats a bit extreme in fairness. If the vendor was in negative equity and needed prior approval from his bank to sell I'm not sure a buying agent could ascertain this info any faster and who ever knows the figure the vendor can sell for until he goes to his bank and gets down to the nuts and bolts of it there. I agree with you in one sense though that some people are just not capable of bargaining and if that is the case they should leave that side of it in the hands of a partner/ family member/ friend...think we all know somebody who drives a hard bargain in fairness

I also agree with you that the Estate Agent is acting on behalf of the seller and the buyer should never assume any differently. However, having said that the Estate Agent should know what they are selling or at least find out for the buyer upon their request if they are unaware. Its hardly much different to selling a car. If was buying a car in a garage and I asked the salesman if the car I was interested in had a service history I would not necessairly expect him to know the answer of the top of his head...might be a couple of hundred cars on the forecourt and a high turnover. BUT if he was not going to bother his backside to find out well that then would be a serious black mark in my book.

The same with Estate Agents really. I have being on the hunt for a house for well over three years and have dealt with quite a few at this stage. I would have asked questions such as is the house concrete built or timber frame; BER rating; does the septic tank comply with regulations etc. I would not necessairly see it as a bad reflection on the EA if they could not provide me with an answer straight away. Like the garage they may have many houses on their books. However, if they didn't bother themselves to find out that would not be good in my eyes. Its nout to do with their responsibility to the vendor really per se. Its just their minimum duty to the buyer to find out the answer to such basic questions as I see it. Same goes for having an overview of the vendors financial circumstances re the house sale...if they need bank approval to sell or if there is a minimum price they can sell for. Remember too although they have a duty to the vendor they also must provide a minimum level of customer service to create a good name and image for themselves among the house buying public...

GerardKeating

allibastor wrote: »

Hi All,

I have had an issue with buying a house recently but have gotten through the legal channels and have found the problem.

The house I am buying has been mortgaged to the hilt and the seller is up to his eyes in debt. The house is a forced sale by the bank but the owner is suffering depression and is now using any excuse to not sign over any property.

When viewing the house I specifically asked the EA if there was any issue with buying the house and was told no, But my legal advise said the agent should have known the situation with the house and the bank.

Am I right to ask the agent why he didn't know, or else didn't disclose this?
I know it will not help with the buying of the house now, but feel annoyed that it was allowed to go on this long.

People sometimes get confused over the role the of Estate Agent, they are the "Agent" of the seller, NOT the purchaser, and their sole function is to get the maximum sale price for the property in question.

johndaman66

GerardKeating wrote: »

People sometimes get confused over the role the of Estate Agent, they are the "Agent" of the seller, NOT the purchaser, and their sole function is to get the maximum sale price for the property in question.

I agree with what your saying to a certain extent. The Estate Agent is the sole agent of the vendor and it would be foolish for a buyer to assume they are on their side. However, while they are the agent of the seller and their primary function is to get the maximum price possible it is not their sole function. A secondary function is to facilitate a sale and that will involve providing the buyer with basic information and details or finding out this info on their behalf...

Also, its not always necessairly the best idea to just go with the highest price on offer or not the Estate Agents sole function to secure the highest price possible if you want to put it that way. Sometimes its more about securing a sale. If for example 2 buyers come along to buy a house. One is a cash buyer and not in a chain and is a very serious buyer with all his affairs in order and offers 187k for the house. The next guy is in a chain, needs to sell his own house, reckons he has it sold...blah blah blah, has a few more houses he wants to view also but offers 189k. It may be more prudent for the EA to view this situation as a bird in the and is worth 2 in the bush. For fear of loosing the guy offering 187k and whom wont budge on that price it may be best to go with his offer rather than risk loosing the offer on the table for the sake of the other guy offering 2k more but is at best a maybe. Arguably if the EA is doing his job right he should advise the vendor accordingly....

allibastor

GerardKeating wrote: »

People sometimes get confused over the role the of Estate Agent, they are the "Agent" of the seller, NOT the purchaser, and their sole function is to get the maximum sale price for the property in question.

????

This doesnt make much sense.
Yes we know thier main function is to get Max sale Price, but should they not know the backgrounds Financial situation of a house.

To go back to the garage quote, they may not know everything about a car, but failure to disclose vital information can lead to a return sale, even after moneyhas changed hands

braddun

what did your solicitor say


The vendor must co-operate with the property agent and not hide any relevant information, which might hinder the transaction. However, neither vendor nor agent are obliged to disclose information detrimental to effecting a good sale – the principle of Caveat Emptor (let the buyer beware) operates in Ireland. That does not mean that vendor or agent can mislead the buyer, but they do not have to voluntarily disclose negative information.

MouseTail

The vendor might not have told the EA the bank was strong arming them to sell, pride and all that. Certainly the vendor was under no obligation to disclose the state of their mental health.

This sale sounds like a nightmare OP, I would walk for the sake of your own mental health unless it is bargain city.

allibastor

braddun wrote: »

what did your solicitor say


The vendor must co-operate with the property agent and not hide any relevant information, which might hinder the transaction. However, neither vendor nor agent are obliged to disclose information detrimental to effecting a good sale – the principle of Caveat Emptor (let the buyer beware) operates in Ireland. That does not mean that vendor or agent can mislead the buyer, but they do not have to voluntarily disclose negative information.

The priciple of buyer beware doesnt include information which can be damaging or potential to cause legal ramifications for the buyer. If you buy a car with a serious mechanical fault you do have comeback, it is just hard from a private sale.

In this case i would imagine that a Direct question asked to the EA which was answered one way would not fall under buyer beware .

Also, how would a potential buyer know of bank trouble on the vendors side

antoinolachtnai

An person with experience in the property sector would know with a fair degree of certainty that there was a bank issue with the sale.

The way he would know this is because there wasn't any other apparent reason for the sale. In general, stuff for sale over the last year has been sold because of bank issues of one sort or another. This sort of stuff is commonplace.

If you do get any information from an estate agent, you can only ever use it for guidance. You cannot depend on it.