are auction contracts categorically infallible

Dav010

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Been reading up on this more , you can do a proper attic conversion which would meet fire regs and thus be certifiable ( in terms of compliance ) for circa 35 k ,perhaps more - perhaps slightly less ?

While not wise for someone to buy without being aware of the law here , in most cases a four bedroom house should be worth at least 35k more than a three bed.

Do nothing and you struggle to ever sell such a house again as it screams baggage and irregularities

Maxx buying at auction screams that anyway, it is often why the property is being sold this way rather than by private treaty. Knowing this before you bid means you are less likely to be frustrated on finding out later that these issues existed when you bid.

Mad_maxx

Dav010 wrote: »

Maxx buying at auction screams that anyway, it is often why the property is being sold this way rather than by private treaty. Knowing this before you bid means you are less likely to be frustrated on finding out later that these issues existed when you bid.

appreciated , i have an attic myself in my own house but its not converted , other half has often talked about us doing it , learning stuff like this protects various kind of house - home owners

dont put cart before horse , get planning first

Mad_maxx

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The auctioneera stuff is just generic advice aimed at particular owners. It is not a statement of the law, rather it is a statement of the practical reality regarding a putative sale.
In most cases an attic can be converted internally and velux windows installed where they do not alter the roof line without plkanning permission.
The restriction is on the use of it as habitable space. The council would just order the owner to stop using it as a bedroom but wouldn't order the removal of the velkux or the flooring.
To avoid hassle in selling best practice is to describe it as a store or else get planning permission and certificates of compliance with building regulations.
The purpose of most auctions whether car or house is to clear problems. They are not for widows and orphans.

a " habitable " space is a bedroom FFS .

i accept that its on the bidder once the hammer drops but the vendor has provided the auction house with incorrect information here regarding the number of bedrooms in the house , the house wasnt even advertised with a " converted attic " , it was advertised as having four beds, if its possible to park the auction contract trumping everything ( very difficult for you i realise ) , this is blatant sharp practice as you cant include a converted attic in the count of bedrooms for sale

idiots are plentiful out there when it comes to online bidding etc but its regrettable that sharp practice on the part of the vendor can be so casually rationalised by virtue of there being an auction contract to give a wave of the hand to everything underhanded

Lenar3556

Mad_maxx wrote: »

a " habitable " space is a bedroom FFS .

i accept that its on the bidder once the hammer drops but the vendor has provided the auction house with incorrect information here regarding the number of bedrooms in the house , the house wasnt even advertised with a " converted attic " , it was advertised as having four beds, if its possible to park the auction contract trumping everything ( very difficult for you i realise ) , this is blatant sharp practice as you cant include a converted attic in the count of bedrooms for sale

idiots are plentiful out there when it comes to online bidding etc but its regrettable that sharp practice on the part of the vendor can be so casually rationalised by virtue of there being an auction contract to give a wave of the hand to everything underhanded

I don’t get where your going with this? You say estate agents have some code of conduct whereby they shouldn’t count, or describe as bedrooms, rooms that they feel might have arisen from a conversion that’s non-compliant in some way? Fine.

Anyone to whom this is remotely relevant shouldn’t be at the auction, because there are much greater risks that won’t be quite so apparent.

Dav010

Mad_maxx wrote: »

as you cant include a converted attic in the count of bedrooms for sale

Why?

A Dormer bungalow is a bungalow with room(s) between the ceiling of the first floor and the roof.

Mad_maxx

Dav010 wrote: »

Why?

A Dormer bungalow is a bungalow with room(s) between the ceiling of the first floor and the roof.

A dormer bungalow is not a three storey house

Dav010

Mad_maxx wrote: »

A dormer bungalow is not a three storey house

The point being, bedrooms can be located between the ceiling of the floor below and the roof.

Was the property in question advertised as three story?

Mad_maxx

Dav010 wrote: »

The point being, bedrooms can be located between the ceiling of the floor below and the roof.

Was the property in question advertised as three story?

A three story house is harder to get compliance certs for

Dav010

Mad_maxx wrote: »

A three story house is harder to get compliance certs for

Was it advertised as a 3 story house? If not, then it’s irrelevant. Bedrooms can be located in the space between the ceiling below and roof above, dormer houses with this room arrangement are sold daily. At auction, a Reciever does not have to supply a compliance cert, and anyone buying at auction should know this, hence why you are well advised to have a solicitor/surveyor check the property.

Mad_maxx

Lenar3556 wrote: »

I don’t get where your going with this? You say estate agents have some code of conduct whereby they shouldn’t count, or describe as bedrooms, rooms that they feel might have arisen from a conversion that’s non-compliant in some way? Fine.

Anyone to whom this is remotely relevant shouldn’t be at the auction, because there are much greater risks that won’t be quite so apparent.

Perhaps or perhaps not ?

Not every receivership sale lot is a total sh1tshow, some are way worse than others

Mad_maxx

Dav010 wrote: »

Was it advertised as a 3 story house? If not, then it’s irrelevant. Bedrooms can be located in the space between the ceiling below and roof above, dormer houses with this room arrangement are sold daily. At auction, a Reciever does not have to supply a compliance cert, and anyone buying at auction should know this, hence why you are well advised to have a solicitor/surveyor check the property.

I understand that an auction contract provides immunity for lies to be told

Perhaps it should be looked at by the powers that be, everything has a price , you can employ a builder and architect to properly convert the attic and get it certified so it can both be safely used as an extra bedroom or legitimately sold as a four bedroom house.

Obviously the receivers can't take the time to regularise things but there should be an onus to disclose

Dav010

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I understand that an auction contract provides immunity for lies to be told

Perhaps it should be looked at by the powers that be, everything has a price , you can employ a builder and architect to properly convert the attic and get it certified so it can both be safely used as an extra bedroom or legitimately sold as a four bedroom house.

Obviously the receivers can't take the time to regularise things but there should be an onus to disclose

Maxx, I’m not a solicitor, I am experienced at buying at auction though. I can assure you, in many cases the Receiver has never set foot in the property and knows nothing about it apart from what is in the prepared pack. To them the property is just a file passed from the bank. They will not regularise things by applying for pp, that is the risk the buyer takes on when buying at auction. You maxx, and anyone else buying at auction should know that there is a reason why the property is being auctioned rather then being sold by PT, and you have the benefit of a solicitor/surveyor to help you assess the risk involved.

Mad_maxx

Dav010 wrote: »

Maxx, I’m not a solicitor, I am experienced at buying at auction though. I can assure you, in many cases the Receiver has never set foot in the property and knows nothing about it apart from what is in the prepared pack. To them the property is just a file passed from the bank. They will not regularise things by applying for pp, that is the risk the buyer takes on when buying at auction. You maxx, and anyone else buying at auction should know that there is a reason why the property is being auctioned rather then being sold by PT, and you have the benefit of a solicitor/surveyor to help you assess the risk involved.

i know the receiver does not have the time or the inclination to regularise a property which has some sort of conversion - development not certified .

someone however makes a call about certain details of the property for listing

1. the address
2. the size of the house
3. the number of rooms
4. beit oil or gas heating
5. whether it is a terraced or detached etc


there is a fast and loose playing with facts here , the buyers were foolish quite obviously and will now spend an extra fifty grand perhaps to put things right but perhaps if the attic conversion not being certified was disclosed , they or someone else might have still been more than happy to buy albeit likely at a lower price , its not like a house needs to be condemned forever just because a bank repossessed it and a conversion took place which was not certifiable

the law needs to change in order for more transparency and disclosure to be a responsibility on the part of the vendor , it doesnt mean people who have more money than sense should have their hands held , there is a middle ground i believe

right now the power of the auction contract shields the vendors from outright shenanigans .

Dav010

Mad_maxx wrote: »

i know the receiver does not have the time or the inclination to regularise a property which has some sort of conversion - development not certified .

someone however makes a call about certain details of the property for listing

1. the address
2. the size of the house
3. the number of rooms
4. beit oil or gas heating
5. whether it is a terraced or detached etc


there is a fast and loose playing with facts here , the buyers were foolish quite obviously and will now spend an extra fifty grand perhaps to put things right but perhaps if the attic conversion not being certified was disclosed , they or someone else might have still been more than happy to buy albeit likely at a lower price , its not like a house needs to be condemned forever just because a bank repossessed it and a conversion took place which was not certifiable

the law needs to change in order for more transparency and disclosure to be a responsibility on the part of the vendor , it doesnt mean people who have more money than sense should have their hands held , there is a middle ground i believe

right now the power of the auction contract shields the vendors from outright shenanigans .

And hopefully their solicitor/surveyor shields them from buying without knowing that there is an issue with planning/regs.

Mad_maxx

Dav010 wrote: »

And hopefully their solicitor/surveyor shields them from buying without knowing that there is an issue with planning/regs.

why not both pray tell ?

Claw Hammer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

a " habitable " space is a bedroom FFS .

i accept that its on the bidder once the hammer drops but the vendor has provided the auction house with incorrect information here regarding the number of bedrooms in the house , the house wasnt even advertised with a " converted attic " , it was advertised as having four beds, if its possible to park the auction contract trumping everything ( very difficult for you i realise ) , this is blatant sharp practice as you cant include a converted attic in the count of bedrooms for sale

idiots are plentiful out there when it comes to online bidding etc but its regrettable that sharp practice on the part of the vendor can be so casually rationalised by virtue of there being an auction contract to give a wave of the hand to everything underhanded

In most of those sales the house has been taken over by a receiver and the vendor has provided the auction house with no information. The buyer expressly agrees that they have seen the property and satisfied themselves as to what is there and they are not relyinjg on anything in the borchure.
What part of such a contract do you not understand?

Mad_maxx

Claw Hammer wrote: »

In most of those sales the house has been taken over by a receiver and the vendor has provided the auction house with no information. The buyer expressly agrees that they have seen the property and satisfied themselves as to what is there and they are not relyinjg on anything in the borchure.
WHat part of such a contract do you not understand.

i understand it perfectly , im saying the law is insufficient as it currently stands as its open to abuse

the vendor at auction in these circumstances is not the person who defaulted on their mortgage , they are not selling it , the receiver is on behalf of the bank , someone in the chain knows how many rooms are in the house or whether or not a cert of compliance is available or not , they are not innocents who are incapable of ascertaining basic details like this.

if no cert of compliance is available re_ the likes of an attic conversion , disclose this information , it does not mean the property wont be sold , however , where the house is listed as a four bed , that to me strongly suggests there was a wilful attempt to mislead , as i said earlier , if they are so in the dark , how come they never underestimate the number of bedrooms ? , surely there is a 50-50 chance of going either way ?

i dont see anything wrong with buying such a property at the right price

ive bought a receivership property myself in the past , a two bed apartment in dooradoyle limerick in 2015 , auction was in the RDS with allsop ( bidx1 predecessor ) , despite being a repossessed property ( i had a solicitor check over the details beforehand ) , there was no issue whatsoever and i subsequently sold it on again two years once the tenants left to move into their three bed new house , i sold it by private treaty and no issues were raised out of the ordinary

not every property is a sh1tshow to the same extent , i dont see a cert of compliance missing for an attic conversion as a disaster but disclose this information , whats so terrible about that unless you believe sharp practice is ok ?

Claw Hammer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

i know the receiver does not have the time or the inclination to regularise a property which has some sort of conversion - development not certified .

someone however makes a call about certain details of the property for listing

1. the address
2. the size of the house
3. the number of rooms
4. beit oil or gas heating
5. whether it is a terraced or detached etc


there is a fast and loose playing with facts here , the buyers were foolish quite obviously and will now spend an extra fifty grand perhaps to put things right but perhaps if the attic conversion not being certified was disclosed , they or someone else might have still been more than happy to buy albeit likely at a lower price , its not like a house needs to be condemned forever just because a bank repossessed it and a conversion took place which was not certifiable

the law needs to change in order for more transparency and disclosure to be a responsibility on the part of the vendor , it doesnt mean people who have more money than sense should have their hands held , there is a middle ground i believe

right now the power of the auction contract shields the vendors from outright shenanigans .

The fact of the conversion not having permission was disclosed. Did you see the reqquisitions on title? Didn't the buyer agree that they inspected the property and were satisfied with what was there?

Mad_maxx

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The fact of the conversion not having permission was disclosed. Did you see the reqquisitions on title? Didn't the buyer agree that they inspected the property and were satisfied with what was there?

i havent read the legal pack pertaining to this property , im relaying what my sister told me , it could apply to numerous receivership sales however.


i see what you are doing here , a text - special condition in the contract for sale stipulates that the buyer has satisfied themselves with what they have seen - researched about the property etc. as such you believe there is nothing more to be discussed and that text in of itself qualfies as a disclosure re_ the attic conversion , it absolutely does not in my view , all that needed to happen here was in the general description on the auction houses page ,the house should have been listed as a three bed , they could have also listed attic conversion and it was up to prospective buyers to see if said conversion was certified

right now , there are no viewings , article in the paper the other day about an auction last week where virtual viewings took place but having looked over one that particular auction house site , many of the lots had no virtual viewings .

Dav010

Mad_maxx wrote: »

i havent read the legal pack pertaining to this property , im relaying what my sister told me , it could apply to numerous receivership sales however.


i see what you are doing here , a text - special condition in the contract for sale stipulates that the buyer has satisfied themselves with what they have seen - researched about the property etc. as such you believe there is nothing more to be discussed and that text in of itself qualfies as a disclosure re_ the attic conversion , it absolutely does not in my view , all that needed to happen here was in the general description on the auction houses page ,the house should have been listed as a three bed , they could have also listed attic conversion and it was up to prospective buyers to see if said conversion was certified

right now , there are no viewings , article in the paper the other day about an auction last week where virtual viewings took place but having looked over one that particular auction house site , many of the lots had no virtual viewings .

But there are four bedrooms.

Claw Hammer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

i understand it perfectly , im saying the law is insufficient as it currently stands as its open to abuse

the vendor at auction in these circumstances is not the person who defaulted on their mortgage , they are not selling it , the receiver is on behalf of the bank , someone in the chain knows how many rooms are in the house or whether or not a cert of compliance is available or not , they are not innocents who are incapable of ascertaining basic details like this.

if no cert of compliance is available re_ the likes of an attic conversion , disclose this information , it does not mean the property wont be sold , however , where the house is listed as a four bed , that to me strongly suggests there was a wilful attempt to mislead , as i said earlier , if they are so in the dark , how come they never underestimate the number of bedrooms ? , surely there is a 50-50 chance of going either way ?

i dont see anything wrong with buying such a property at the right price

ive bought a receivership property myself in the past , a two bed apartment in dooradoyle limerick in 2015 , auction was in the RDS with allsop ( bidx1 predecessor ) , despite being a repossessed property ( i had a solicitor check over the details beforehand ) , there was no issue whatsoever and i subsequently sold it on again two years once the tenants left to move into their three bed new house , i sold it by private treaty and no issues were raised out of the ordinary

not every property is a sh1tshow to the same extent , i dont see a cert of compliance missing for an attic conversion as a disaster but disclose this information , whats so terrible about that unless you believe sharp practice is ok ?

The law is perfectly clear. You do not rely on the brochure or details and it is a condition of bidding at the auction that you do not. You Inspect the property and the legal pack and satisfy yourself before you bid that everything is as described. You wantto change the law so an agent is responsible fore checking the accuracy of everything in the brochure. Checking planning is a matter for solicitors not agents. The whole pointy of these auctions is to let receivers close their files. If a slip up happens that is tough an an eejit bwho relies on the brochure. They were warned not to and agrred they wouldn't hold the agent responsible.

Claw Hammer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

i havent read the legal pack pertaining to this property , im relaying what my sister told me , it could apply to numerous receivership sales however.

It applies to practically all receivership sales. When buying, assume nothing. Nothing difficult about that.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

i see what you are doing here , a text - special condition in the contract for sale stipulates that the buyer has satisfied themselves with what they have seen - researched about the property etc. as such you believe there is nothing more to be discussed and that text in of itself qualfies as a disclosure re_ the attic conversion , it absolutely does not in my view , all that needed to happen here was in the general description on the auction houses page ,the house should have been listed as a three bed , they could have also listed attic conversion and it was up to prospective buyers to see if said conversion was certified

The brochure itself says it is for guidance only and does not form part of any contract. Mistakes happen particulary in relation to house descriptions. Check before you buy.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

right now , there are no viewings , article in the paper the other day about an auction last week where virtual viewings took place but having looked over one that particular auction house site , many of the lots had no virtual viewings .

Don't buy unless you can view.

Mad_maxx

Dav010 wrote: »

But there are four bedrooms.

an attic is not a bedroom if it isnt certified , its only a converted attic , its a hugely important distinction and we both know it

Claw Hammer referred to an attic conversion earlier and how it just cant be used as a " habitable space " , the converted space should not be used to sleep people and cannot be used in bedroom listings in any future sale

ive just been on the phone to my local TD and he is going to raise the matter at some level , he is an independent so perhaps nothing ever comes of it whatsoever but i believe too many people are at risk of being hoodwinked due to outdated contract conditions which cover those who are wilfully trying to deceive , the lockdown illustrates the leak that needs plugging even more

Mad_maxx

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It applies to practically all receivership sales. When buying, assume nothing. Nothing difficult about that.

The brochure itself says it is for guidance only and does not form part of any contract. Mistakes happen particulary in relation to house descriptions. Check before you buy.

Don't buy unless you can view.

why engage when you are so close minded about this ?

funny how you are so casual about the auction house or receivership making mistakes ?

" mistakes happen particularly in relation to house descriptions "

no such slack is afforded to house buyers , no one mistakenly counts bedrooms incorrectly and certainly not an outfit in the business of selling property

ohnonotgmail

Mad_maxx wrote: »

i understand it perfectly , im saying the law is insufficient as it currently stands as its open to abuse

the vendor at auction in these circumstances is not the person who defaulted on their mortgage , they are not selling it , the receiver is on behalf of the bank , someone in the chain knows how many rooms are in the house or whether or not a cert of compliance is available or not , they are not innocents who are incapable of ascertaining basic details like this.

if no cert of compliance is available re_ the likes of an attic conversion , disclose this information , it does not mean the property wont be sold , however , where the house is listed as a four bed , that to me strongly suggests there was a wilful attempt to mislead , as i said earlier , if they are so in the dark , how come they never underestimate the number of bedrooms ? , surely there is a 50-50 chance of going either way ?

i dont see anything wrong with buying such a property at the right price

ive bought a receivership property myself in the past , a two bed apartment in dooradoyle limerick in 2015 , auction was in the RDS with allsop ( bidx1 predecessor ) , despite being a repossessed property ( i had a solicitor check over the details beforehand ) , there was no issue whatsoever and i subsequently sold it on again two years once the tenants left to move into their three bed new house , i sold it by private treaty and no issues were raised out of the ordinary

not every property is a sh1tshow to the same extent , i dont see a cert of compliance missing for an attic conversion as a disaster but disclose this information , whats so terrible about that unless you believe sharp practice is ok ?

information re certificates of compliance is included in the legal pack. it is the bidders responsibility to read and understand the legal pack.

ohnonotgmail

Mad_maxx wrote: »

why engage when you are so close minded about this ?

funny how you are so casual about the auction house or receivership making mistakes ?

" mistakes happen particularly in relation to house descriptions "

no such slack is afforded to house buyers , no one mistakenly counts bedrooms incorrectly and certainly not an outfit in the business of selling property

nobody is being close minded. there is one group of people saying what the legal situation actually is and you replying with what you want it to be.

Mad_maxx

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

nobody is being close minded. there is one group of people saying what the legal situation actually is and you replying with what you want it to be.

So do you believe laws should never be changed or ammended?

ohnonotgmail

Mad_maxx wrote: »

So do you believe laws should never be changed or ammended?

what sort of stupid question is that? the thread asked if auction contracts are infallible. In the context of the issue with the 4th bedroom it is clear they are. the question has been answered, you just don't like the answer.

Mad_maxx

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what sort of stupid question is that? the thread asked if auction contracts are infallible. In the context of the issue with the 4th bedroom it is clear they are. the question has been answered, you just don't like the answer.

your earlier post BTW where you stated that information re_ compliance certs is contained in the legal packs.

not always unless you consider a general acceptance that nothing will be provided is the same thing ?

ohnonotgmail

Mad_maxx wrote: »

your earlier post BTW where you stated that information re_ compliance certs is contained in the legal packs.

not always unless you consider a general acceptance that nothing will be provided is the same thing ?

if compliance certs are not included then you assume for the purposes of bidding that they dont exist. how is that difficult to understand?