poppet2 Â Â 13 #1 Posted October 26, 2017 Suppose a vendor deliberately withholds or claims not to have certain documents, (not unheard of), in order to unload a property at auction. Could there be no redress towards the vendor after the sale? Â Caveat Emptor used to be well used when purchasing a second hand car, but there are plenty of unscrupulous second hand car dealers appearing on 'Judge Rinder' these days. Does this mean Caveat emptor is fast disappearing in this modern age of trading standard acts? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
geared   268 #2 Posted October 26, 2017 What documents might be missing or might they want to cover up? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jim Hardie   496 #3 Posted October 26, 2017 Caveat Emptor should be the byword for any type of purchase. Purchasing a property at auction without benefit of a search is probably done at the buyer's risk. Just make sure the price reflects this. Any legal redress might be limited to a scenario where the property was not the vendor's to sell. Sound legal advice is essential. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
poppet2 Â Â 13 #4 Posted October 26, 2017 What documents might be missing or might they want to cover up? Â No plan. I've known someone buy a property stating in the auction brochure it had 4 bedrooms when there were only 3! Â No mention of tenants residing at the property or the type of tenancies they have. Crucial if they come under the 1977 Rent Act. Â Also, no mention if the tenants are in arrears. Â No mention if the property has undergone any subsidence in the past, which can make it difficult to get insurance. Â If a standard checklist were in place, it would eradicate these problems. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
geared   268 #5 Posted October 26, 2017 Do you not look round these places before bidding? You'd find out if it had tenants in or they'd falsified the number of bedrooms. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
poppet2 Â Â 13 #6 Posted October 26, 2017 Do you not look round these places before bidding? You'd find out if it had tenants in or they'd falsified the number of bedrooms. Â Not all properties have viewings so you have no choice but to depend on the information from the auction catalogue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
onlineo   10 #7 Posted October 28, 2017 Not all properties have viewings so you have no choice but to depend on the information from the auction catalogue.  Whilst that is true. You should at least visit the house and look around its gardens and through all tge windows before bidding. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
ANGELFIRE1 Â Â 10 #8 Posted October 29, 2017 Not all properties have viewings so you have no choice but to depend on the information from the auction catalogue. Â Would common sense not be applied in this kind of a situation, why bid on something you have never seen, it's asking for trouble is it not. Â Angel1. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
poppet2 Â Â 13 #9 Posted October 31, 2017 Would common sense not be applied in this kind of a situation, why bid on something you have never seen, it's asking for trouble is it not. Â Angel1. Â Regardless, it happens every week on Homes UT Hammer. Â Whether you attend the viewing or not, I've been to viewings where they state 2 bed property, only to find one, and this amendment is still not corrected in the catalogue or on the day of the auction. Someone should be made accountable for these brochure mistakes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
geared   268 #10 Posted October 31, 2017 I see where you're coming from, especially if viewings and such are blocked.  If there were such major issues I wonder if you could pull out of the buy or claim some money back from the seller/auction house? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jeffrey Shaw   83 #11 Posted October 31, 2017 The auction contract, just as with all contracts, cannot be drawn so as knowingly to defraud. Fraud is a criminal offence and also a tort (civil wrong). The onus would be on the purchaser (P) to prove fraud by the vendor (V) or by those acting on V's behalf.  But equally P has to take the property as it is. There are protections available (e.g. indemnity insurance).  Oddly, I've a case ongoing at present which raises precisely these issues. P bought a flat only to find that the Local Authority had served on V a Planning Compliance Notice prohibiting use of the property for residential purposes. Yet V's sale contract- and the new lease which it introduced- explicitly required no use other than residential. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
geared   268 #12 Posted October 31, 2017 Would omission of details be considered fraud?  For example V puts a house into auction, states no viewings but does not mention it contains sitting tenants? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...