are auction contracts categorically infallible

Mad_maxx

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

do you think listing a three bed as a four bed is fine once such deliberate misrepresentation is protected by the auction contract which governs every other consideration ?

ohnonotgmail

Mad_maxx wrote: »

do you think listing a three bed as a four bed is fine once such deliberate misrepresentation is protected by the auction contract which governs every other consideration ?

you assume it is deliberate. the concept of honest mistake is seemingly unknown to you. either way it is responsibility of the bidder to do their due diligence. auctions are not for amateurs.

Mad_maxx

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you assume it is deliberate. the concept of honest mistake is seemingly unknown to you. either way it is responsibility of the bidder to do their due diligence. auctions are not for amateurs.

great , you see no onus on the vendor to correctly present information , even they balls it up

its all on the buyer

understood

ohnonotgmail

Mad_maxx wrote: »

great , you see no onus on the vendor to correctly present information , even they balls it up

its all on the buyer

understood

that isn't it at all. the vendor creates a legal pack. that is the only information the bidder should rely on.

Mad_maxx

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that isn't it at all. the vendor creates a legal pack. that is the only information the bidder should rely on.

just list the three bedroom house as a three bed , add the detail of converted attic as well

there may of course be other irregularities but its not that much to expect rudimentary specifications to be correct

Peregrinus

Mad_maxx wrote: »

do you think listing a three bed as a four bed is fine once such deliberate misrepresentation is protected by the auction contract which governs every other consideration ?

No, it's not fine. It's a very poor practice. It may be unprofessional on the part of the estate agent.

But the question is whether it's so unfine as to nullify the auction. And the answer is no, it's not that unfine. The buyer agrees that it's not that unfine when he bids in the auction, because the contract of sale which he is bidding to sign say that's not that unfine, and he knows it says that, because the contract of sale is included in the document pack made available to potential bidders.

Mad_maxx

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it's not fine. It's a very poor practice. It may be unprofessional on the part of the estate agent.

But the question is whether it's so unfine as to nullify the auction. And the answer is no, it's not that unfine. The buyer agrees that it's not that unfine when he bids in the auction, because the contract of sale which he is bidding to sign say that's not that unfine, and he knows it says that, because the contract of sale is included in the document pack made available to potential bidders.

in this instance it most certainly wont nullify the auction but it might be worth hoping for that more accurate showcasing is done in future ,that auction houses or receivers are obliged to be accurate

currently its all on the buyer to check things that may not be as they seem

Claw Hammer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

in this instance it most certainly wont nullify the auction but it might be worth hoping for that more accurate showcasing is done in future ,that auction houses or receivers are obliged to be accurate

currently its all on the buyer to check things that may not be as they seem

You have now shofted to accepting what the law is to campaigning for change.

How can anyone buy a 3 bed with converted attic without knowing that the converted attic is non compliant?
The buyer will have engaged a solicitor and surveyor. It will be patently obvious that there is an unauthorised conbversion.
You now want the netire business model of online auctions changed because you have been caught out through not doing due diligence.
The reason for online auctions is to enable the problem properties which the banks acquire through repossession to be disposed of. Putting in consumer protection to benefit the stupid would ruin the whole business model, increasing overheads, causing delay without any consequent increase in revenue.
A stupid idea.

Mad_maxx

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You have now shofted to accepting what the law is to campaigning for change.

How can anyone buy a 3 bed with converted attic without knowing that the converted attic is non compliant?
The buyer will have engaged a solicitor and surveyor. It will be patently obvious that there is an unauthorised conbversion.
You now want the netire business model of online auctions changed because you have been caught out through not doing due diligence.
The reason for online auctions is to enable the problem properties which the banks acquire through repossession to be disposed of. Putting in consumer protection to benefit the stupid would ruin the whole business model, increasing overheads, causing delay without any consequent increase in revenue.
A stupid idea.

converting an attic is not illegal , you just can sleep people in it or sell it as an extra bedroom

im not asking for the business model to be radically altered , just an onus on the seller or auction house to disclose correct information

you want to just label everyone an idiot who doesnt nod in agreement with the current situation where any kind of sharp practice is protected by the auction contract

the situation may never change but highlighting sharp practice is right and proper in my view , you think differently , fine

Claw Hammer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

converting an attic is not illegal , you just can sleep people in it or sell it as an extra bedroom

im not asking for the business model to be radically altered , just an onus on the seller or auction house to disclose correct information

you want to just label everyone an idiot who doesnt nod in agreement with the current situation where any kind of sharp practice is protected by the auction contract

the situation may never change but highlighting sharp practice is right and proper in my view , you think differently , fine

Putting an onus on the auction house or seller to disclose the correct information happens unless parties contract out of it which they did in this case. What you want is a situation where they cannot contract out of it, which is a radical change in the busimess model.
There is little advantage to an auction house misdescribing a converted attic as a bedroom as it is inevitably going to emerge that there is no planning or compliance with regulations.
You are trying to solve a problem which does not exist.
If the auction houses cannot contract out of liability for misdescription, they will not give descriptions at all thus causing hassle for intending purchasers.

Mad_maxx

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Putting an onus on the auction house or seller to disclose the correct information happens unless parties contract out of it which they did in this case. What you want is a situation where they cannot contract out of it, which is a radical change in the busimess model.
There is little advantage to an auction house misdescribing a converted attic as a bedroom as it is inevitably going to emerge that there is no planning or compliance with regulations.
You are trying to solve a problem which does not exist.
If the auction houses cannot contract out of liability for misdescription, they will not give descriptions at all thus causing hassle for intending purchasers.

" little advantage in misdescribing a converted attic as a bedroom " ?

you have to be joking ?

changing a three bed to a four bedroom automatically inflates the potential sales value

ohnonotgmail

Mad_maxx wrote: »

" little advantage in misdescribing a converted attic as a bedroom " ?

you have to be joking ?

changing a three bed to a four bedroom automatically inflates the potential sales value

not for somebody who does their due diligence and reads the legal pack.

Mad_maxx

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

not for somebody who does their due diligence and reads the legal pack.

what if the legal pack has no reference to a compliance cert for a converted attic ?

does that by default then mean the false advertising was merely a big joke and not to be taken seriously ?

Claw Hammer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

" little advantage in misdescribing a converted attic as a bedroom " ?

you have to be joking ?

changing a three bed to a four bedroom automatically inflates the potential sales value

No it doesn't. It is going to be discovered before long. All that will have happened is that the wrong market has been attracted. It would only add to the sales value if it was undiscovered until the point of sale. You have not explained how this happened or could happen.

ohnonotgmail

Mad_maxx wrote: »

what if the legal pack has no reference to a compliance cert for a converted attic ?

does that by default then mean the false advertising was merely a big joke and not to be taken seriously ?

if there is no compliance cert then assume it isn't compliant and bid as if it is a 3 bed. this has been explained to you already.

Claw Hammer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

what if the legal pack has no reference to a compliance cert for a converted attic ?

does that by default then mean the false advertising was merely a big joke and not to be taken seriously ?

The legal pack will always state that there is no guarantee of compliance with planning permission and will also refuse to state whether there have been any alterations to the building and whether, if there were, they were authorised or not.

Mad_maxx

Claw Hammer wrote: »

No it doesn't. It is going to be discovered before long. All that will have happened is that the wrong market has been attracted. It would only add to the sales value if it was undiscovered until the point of sale. You have not explained how this happened or could happen.

you are letting the auction house ( or receiver ) off the hook for the mistakes of the bidder .

why cant the bidder be an idiot along with the auction house and whoever being guilty of false marketing ?

its at best obtuse to think inflating the number of bedrooms in a property serves no advantage to those involved in trying to sell said property

Mad_maxx

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if there is no compliance cert then assume it isn't compliant and bid as if it is a 3 bed. this has been explained to you already.

none of that negates the fact there was false information provided , if a person buys a duff car without getting a mechanic to check it over , the seller is still a cowboy even he faces no consequence

Mad_maxx

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The legal pack will always state that there is no guarantee of compliance with planning permission and will also refuse to state whether there have been any alterations to the building and whether, if there were, they were authorised or not.

if they can state all that , they can also state the correct number of bedrooms in the lot , you believe getting it wrong is a mere mistake and that falsely inflating the number of bedrooms offers no advantage to the seller

nobody can honestly believe this

ohnonotgmail

Mad_maxx wrote: »

none of that negates the fact there was false information provided , if a person buys a duff car without getting a mechanic to check it over , the seller is still a cowboy even he faces no consequence

the only information the bidder can rely on is in the legal pack. again, this has already been explained to you.

Melanchthon

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the only information the bidder can rely on is in the legal pack. again, this has already been explained to you.

I have no clue about these type of auctions does this mean that absolutely blatent false advertising is allowed?
For example could one grab a bunch of pictures of a different house and advertise that your selling a 6 room mansion when it's actually a bungalow?

I know this sounds ridiculous but if your allowed to delibrately put the wrong number of bedrooms in where is the line drawn? (And yes calling most attic conversions bedrooms is false advertising as if you can't legally use it as a bedroom it's not a bedroom).

Mad_maxx

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the only information the bidder can rely on is in the legal pack. again, this has already been explained to you.

it has an the lack of open mindedness is starting to grate , i already stated the bidders were naive fools , i also want to see changes where those who provide false info are held to account , that the auction contract shields them so categorically is why they feel free to engage in such sharp practice

Mad_maxx

Melanchthon wrote: »

I have no clue about these type of auctions does this mean that absolutely blatent false advertising is allowed?
For example could one grab a bunch of pictures of a different house and advertise that your selling a 6 room mansion when it's actually a bungalow?

I know this sounds ridiculous but if your allowed to delibrately put the wrong number of bedrooms in where is the line drawn? (And yes calling most attic conversions bedrooms is false advertising as if you can't legally use it as a bedroom it's not a bedroom).

this is what is happening and with covid lockdown , the situation is much more ripe for abuse

ohnonotgmail

Melanchthon wrote: »

I have no clue about these type of auctions does this mean that absolutely blatent false advertising is allowed?
For example could one grab a bunch of pictures of a different house and advertise that your selling a 6 room mansion when it's actually a bungalow?

I know this sounds ridiculous but if your allowed to delibrately put the wrong number of bedrooms in where is the line drawn? (And yes calling most attic conversions bedrooms is false advertising as if you can't legally use it as a bedroom it's not a bedroom).

you're right, your analogy is ridiculous.

Melanchthon

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you're right, your analogy is ridiculous.

Do you mind telling me why? This isn't After Hours.

ohnonotgmail

Melanchthon wrote: »

Do you mind telling me why? This isn't After Hours.

what is unclear? your analogy is ridiculous.

Melanchthon

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what is unclear? your analogy is ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous? Where is the line drawn about false advertising?
Again this isn't After Hours

ohnonotgmail

Melanchthon wrote: »

Why is it ridiculous? Where is the line drawn about false advertising?
Again this isn't After Hours

honestly, if you need someone to explain that to you then nothing i say will help.

Mad_maxx

Melanchthon wrote: »

Why is it ridiculous? Where is the line drawn about false advertising?
Again this isn't After Hours

the other poster believes that the only onus is on the buyer to both check and satisfy themselves that information is correct

the auction contract renders any marketing information as irrelevant , Claw Hammer ( another poster contributing here ) described marketing information as " fluff " and effectively not to be taken literally

despite all this glaring example of immunity to engage in sharp practice , they believe changing things would " damage the business model "

Melanchthon

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

honestly, if you need someone to explain that to you then nothing i say will help.

Seriously dude like why bother replying if your not going to add anything at all?