my Leasehold/Freehold property and it's issues.

[honeybee13]

This isn't really my field, hopefully someone who knows more will see this thread.

 

My first thought is that as I see it, you don't have a relationship with either the agent or the estate agent, if you mean two different people. I'm not sure where you stand if you start talking to them.

 

HB

[HP Mum]

The estate agent has written to me.  They advise they have an offer on the property - for the fh.  But they unequivocally know they are only instructed / can only sell the lease.  So  how can they write saying a prospective buyer is offering £x for the fh ?  

They can't.  Which is why I would like to point out they are misleading the prospective buyer? and misrepresenting the property?  That's why i wonder if I should suggest they take a quick look at the 08 cpr and bpr?

[honeybee13]

Before threatening misrepresentation, have you pointed out that they were instructed to sell the leasehold only?

 

HB

[HP Mum]

yes - 5 months ago in writing.  And the head of sales replied in writing acknowledging

[ericsbrother]

simplest thing to do is tell the agents that as they are not following your instruction you are removing the property from their agency.

What they are trying to do is dangle a carrot to prospective buyers to get more interest and it may be that is the only realisitc way they can gte a sniff of a sale.

why on earth was the freehold purchase ever mentioned?

[HP Mum]

ericsbrother - its not quite as black/white as that.  But i get your drift about dangling carrots in front of buyers.

[HP Mum]

I wrote to agent; asked for clarity on when instructed and by who to sell fh.   They have not replied yet.

I've read a lot of legal stuff over the weekend.  It seems they are completely wrong to offer it with no instructions. Intrigued how they reply...

[Ethel Street]

On 27/09/2019 at 10:49, HP Mum said:

The estate agent has written to me.  They advise they have an offer on the property - for the fh.  But they unequivocally know they are only instructed / can only sell the lease.  So  how can they write saying a prospective buyer is offering £x for the fh ?  

They can't.  

 

Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of what the agent is advertising if they receive an offer from a prospective purchaser who wants to buy the freehold as well they have a legal duty (under law of agency) to disclose to you that they have received the offer. Obviously you can reject the offer because don't want to sell the freehold.

[HP Mum]

But that is the point - they are not instructed by the freeholder. The lender instructed them to sell the lease.  Neither the leaseholder nor the agent have any instructions to offer the fh.  It is completely outside of their remit.  Surely the agent has no legal duty to the freeholders - strangers - to disclose anything?

 

If you owned something and suddenly found out someone was offering to sell it behind your back - with no instructions, authority or means to actually sell it - wouldn't you not only be angry, but want to take action?

Edited September 30, 2019 by HP Mum

[BazzaS]

HP Mum, are you (Or the person you are posting on behalf of) the LH, or FH?

[HP Mum]

Rep for the fh

[BazzaS]

Well, then, clearly you (you say you are the rep. For the FH : do you have authority to act as their agent?) are aware of the lender’s actions. Are you / the FH trying to make themselves unavailable? (see your other thread about service of notice!).

Are you in contact with the FH ?

 

Simplest resolution for the FH (or you,?if you have their authority to act) : contact the lender, remind them they have repossessed the lease (only) ......

Edited September 30, 2019 by BazzaS

[HP Mum]

Both lender and agent know they can only sell the lease.

They also know the fh - by law - is protected and cannot be purchased.

So how can agent be accepting offer for fh from anyone? 

Aside from anything else -  agent is knowingly misleading potential buyer they can buy the fh.  They have no instruction/ authority to offer it.  Asked agent to explain when they took instructions (never!) and by who (no-one!).

Surely they are breaking some law and regulation?

 

Edited September 30, 2019 by HP Mum

[Ethel Street]

21 minutes ago, HP Mum said:

 

 

So how can agent be accepting offer for fh from anyone? 

Aside from anything else -  agent is knowingly misleading potential buyer they can buy the fh.  They have no instruction/ authority to offer it.  Asked agent to explain when they took instructions (never!) and by who (no-one!).

Surely they are breaking some law and regulation?

 

 

Surely the agent hasn't accepted an offer for anything? The offer is being made to you (via your agent) isn't it? Only you could accept or reject  it. The agent would very likely be breaching the law (of agency) if they didn't tell you they had received the offer. An agent is bound by law to report any offer to their principal - you - even if the offer goes beyond the agent's remit.

 

Reading through the whole thread I am unclear why you are seeking some legal redress. What loss have you suffered? If you are not happy with the service you are getting why not just terminate their agency and appoint another estate agent? People change their estate agent all the time if they are not happy with the service they are receiving. I've never heard of anyone seeking legal redress. If you are not interested in selling the freehold (or if it isn't yours to sell) just say no and decline the offer! Then terminate them and appoint a new agent.

Edited September 30, 2019 by Ethel Street

[HP Mum]

The agent is not my agent; the leaseholder instructed the agent to sell the lease.  Absolutely nothing to do with me.

The issue is: the agent knows I am "rep" for the freeholder but there is no instruction; they have no authority to offer fh to anyone.  it is not for sale.  Agent know that.

They can only sell what their client, the leaseholder has instructed them to sell.

So my complaint is - knowing they have no instruction other than to sell the lease - how can they write to the "rep" saying they have an offer for the fh ???

 

[honeybee13]

HP Mum.

 

Is there a lender who is also involved here after a repossession?

HB

[HP Mum]

yes

[BazzaS]

You say you are the “rep” for the FH, but it is still unclear if you have authority to act (as their agent) for them : you’ve been asked this but haven’t answered.

 

If you have no authority to act : you have no rights in the matter.

 

It is also unclear so far:

a) if you are in contact with the FH

b) if the FH knows what is going on

c) what you are actually trying to achieve here, and

d) What the FH wants,

and c) and d) aren’t necessarily the same!

[HP Mum]

Its a Trustee/Trust setup.  Yes authority.

What trying to achieve - 1) unequivocally protect fh 2) find the legal acts or bodies that prevent agent misrepresenting the property - and let them know they (and leaseholder) are in trouble...

.

[BazzaS]

Do the Trustees know what is going on?

What do they want?

(I don’t know what you mean by “Protect FH”, any attempt to sell the FH would fail at the conveyancing stage, if not before!), so I’m not sure the estate agent and lender who has re-possessed will “end up in trouble....”

 

Do the trustees really want the property left boarded up with no actual tenant in-situ?

Are they aware this may lead to the property deteriorating and then being worth less?

Edited September 30, 2019 by BazzaS

[HP Mum]

yes Trustees aware.  Protect = won't sell.

Yes property must be deteriorating whilst unoccupied. But leaseholder is trying to sell it empty and hasn't sold. leaseholder is not taking care of the property.  Nor is agent - left windows open/ squatters got in (now gone).  Yes property is being devalued by their actions (or inaction!).

All I am really trying to say is - can the freeholders (Trustees) take action against the agent for marketing the property wrongly.  If agent has advised they are in receipt of an offer for the fh - which they cannot ever offer or sell - what redress does the fh/Trustees have?

 

[honeybee13]

I may have asked this before, but who has instructed the selling agents, is it the lender who repossessed?

 

HB

[HP Mum]

yes

nothing to do with the fh

[honeybee13]

Just to be clear, the instructions to the selling agent were received from the lender who repossessed?

 

HB

[BazzaS]

The redress the Trustees have is to remind the lender that it is only the LH the lender has.

 

Trustees aren't doing themselves any favours by not communicating with the lender : "we want damages because the lender has boarded up the property, but aren't engaging with them, and deliberately aren't contacting the lender" - that won't fly. The Trustees have a duty to mitigate their loss before they can claim it.

 

Trustees wont suffer loss by "sale of the FH by the lender" as it is, at most an error, and would get caught at the conveyancing stage, if not before.

 

I'm still unclear why the Trustees don't just contact / engage with the lender .......

Edited September 30, 2019 by BazzaS