Tweet
Hi
First some background to how I ended up in this situation.
I had found some land, just a field, I was interested in on an online auction site, paid my deposit, and got the legal pack review by a solicitor, visited the field and everything looked ok, the solicitor confirmed that the legal pack was standard and there was nothing to concerning in the pack other than the timelines of 14day which would be “tight”.
Day of the auction I logged on to the site and searched for the location and 2 auctions were listed, the one I wanted to bid on and another one close by that I had not seen, I checked the legal pack and it was the same, except for the location and the details of the field. The original piece of land I wanted to bid on had reached the maximum I wanted to pay but the other piece of land was still below what I had budgeted, so I paid a second holding fee so I could bid, this was accepted 15 mins before the scheduled end of the auction which I subsequently won.
The following day I visited the field, and this is where the problem starts!
The following are summary of the mail exchange I had initially with the auction house and then the vendors solicitors
I recently revisited the property and engaged in a conversation with an individual who was attending to horses in the field. To my surprise, he revealed that he has been a longstanding tenant of the land for a period exceeding 10 years..
It is imperative to note that the document titled "Special Conditions - xxxxx - xxxx Lane" explicitly states, under the section pertaining to Tenancies, that "There are no TENANCIES." This assertion is demonstrably inaccurate, as there is indeed a tenant in occupancy.
Had I been apprised of the presence of an existing tenant, a fact conspicuously omitted from any of the documents, particularly in light of the unequivocal statement that "There are no TENANCIES," I would not have submitted a bid for the property.
Following is a complaint I have logged with the auction house
The image below is taken from google maps. The gate on the right-hand side of the image is the gate that the auctions pictures were taken from, the open gate in the center of the image is xxxxxx- equestrian who’s office and main buildings are 5 meters to the left of the gate.
After looking at the auction images on your site, which are displayed for a brief 5-second duration each, at a small size and low resolution, I have acquired higher-resolution images as evidence, accessible here: [Link to Images] These enhanced images reveal a significant disparity from those displayed on the auction site, where a lower resolution and reduced display size were employed. The improved resolution allows for the identification of horses present in the field, a detail that would have been evident at the time the photographs were taken.
Below is a section of one of the images at 100% , I have cut this down to fit in the document.
The presence of horses in the field is clearly evident in this image and others available on the EIG site. This revelation directly contradicts the information provided in the legal pack, which explicitly states, "There are no TENANCIES." It is apparent that the field is presently occupied, a detail that should have been readily noticeable to the individual capturing the photographs at that time.
Considering the obligation imposed by RICS Professional Standards on auctioneers to "thoroughly verify the accuracy of catalogued information through personal inspection and consultation with the seller's solicitor regarding legal matters pertaining to title and occupation," a brief 5-meter walk to visit to xxxxxxx xxxxxx Equestrian would have sufficed to clarify the situation. I do not consider this to be an unreasonable or onerous activity, given the requirement set forth by RICS Professional Standards.
The main points of the complaint are as follows
Compliance with RICS Professional Standards: The RICS PROFESSIONAL STANDARD governing Auctioneers selling real estate, including Common Auction Conditions 4.3, obliges auctioneers to diligently verify the accuracy of catalogued information through personal inspection and consultation with the seller's solicitor regarding legal matters affecting title and occupation.
a. Specifically that the filed was occupied
b. The standard also require adherence to Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) (when dealing with consumers)
Adherence to Consumer Protection Regulations: The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, Regulation 5, section (b), stipulates that a commercial practice satisfies its conditions if it contains false information, leading to untruthfulness concerning any matters outlined in paragraph (4), or if it deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in any manner regarding those matters, even if the information is factually correct. Furthermore, it must cause or be likely to cause the average consumer to make a transactional decision that they would not have otherwise undertaken.
a. Section 5, section (c) pertains to any failure by a trader to uphold a commitment outlined in a code of conduct that the trader has pledged to adhere to.
b. Section 6, In Brief - Misleading Actions and Omissions: A commercial practice is deceptive if it contains false information or presents information in a manner that deceives (or is likely to deceive) the average consumer, thereby influencing their decision to make a purchase. An omission is also deceptive if it conceals material information that the average consumer requires to make an informed decision, or if it is presented in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous, or untimely manner.
c. The omission of the field being occupied by horses, which is clearly evident in the EIG images and should have been noticeable to the person capturing the photographs at that time or the individual compiling them for your auction site, is a pertinent example of a potential violation of these regulations.
The contract contains special conditions but also a section titled “Extra special conditions” which contains:-
So basically, the legal pack is not worth the paper it is written on.
I bid on the land based on the information presented, I can't believe that they did not know the land was at least occupied as they would have seen this when taking the pictures for auction.
I feel that I have been misled by the information presented and should be allowed to withdraw but they are now threatening legal action unless I complete in 10 days !
What are my options with this?
Thanks, Paul
First some background to how I ended up in this situation.
I had found some land, just a field, I was interested in on an online auction site, paid my deposit, and got the legal pack review by a solicitor, visited the field and everything looked ok, the solicitor confirmed that the legal pack was standard and there was nothing to concerning in the pack other than the timelines of 14day which would be “tight”.
Day of the auction I logged on to the site and searched for the location and 2 auctions were listed, the one I wanted to bid on and another one close by that I had not seen, I checked the legal pack and it was the same, except for the location and the details of the field. The original piece of land I wanted to bid on had reached the maximum I wanted to pay but the other piece of land was still below what I had budgeted, so I paid a second holding fee so I could bid, this was accepted 15 mins before the scheduled end of the auction which I subsequently won.
The following day I visited the field, and this is where the problem starts!
The following are summary of the mail exchange I had initially with the auction house and then the vendors solicitors
I recently revisited the property and engaged in a conversation with an individual who was attending to horses in the field. To my surprise, he revealed that he has been a longstanding tenant of the land for a period exceeding 10 years..
It is imperative to note that the document titled "Special Conditions - xxxxx - xxxx Lane" explicitly states, under the section pertaining to Tenancies, that "There are no TENANCIES." This assertion is demonstrably inaccurate, as there is indeed a tenant in occupancy.
Had I been apprised of the presence of an existing tenant, a fact conspicuously omitted from any of the documents, particularly in light of the unequivocal statement that "There are no TENANCIES," I would not have submitted a bid for the property.
Following is a complaint I have logged with the auction house
The image below is taken from google maps. The gate on the right-hand side of the image is the gate that the auctions pictures were taken from, the open gate in the center of the image is xxxxxx- equestrian who’s office and main buildings are 5 meters to the left of the gate.
After looking at the auction images on your site, which are displayed for a brief 5-second duration each, at a small size and low resolution, I have acquired higher-resolution images as evidence, accessible here: [Link to Images] These enhanced images reveal a significant disparity from those displayed on the auction site, where a lower resolution and reduced display size were employed. The improved resolution allows for the identification of horses present in the field, a detail that would have been evident at the time the photographs were taken.
Below is a section of one of the images at 100% , I have cut this down to fit in the document.
The presence of horses in the field is clearly evident in this image and others available on the EIG site. This revelation directly contradicts the information provided in the legal pack, which explicitly states, "There are no TENANCIES." It is apparent that the field is presently occupied, a detail that should have been readily noticeable to the individual capturing the photographs at that time.
Considering the obligation imposed by RICS Professional Standards on auctioneers to "thoroughly verify the accuracy of catalogued information through personal inspection and consultation with the seller's solicitor regarding legal matters pertaining to title and occupation," a brief 5-meter walk to visit to xxxxxxx xxxxxx Equestrian would have sufficed to clarify the situation. I do not consider this to be an unreasonable or onerous activity, given the requirement set forth by RICS Professional Standards.
The main points of the complaint are as follows
Compliance with RICS Professional Standards: The RICS PROFESSIONAL STANDARD governing Auctioneers selling real estate, including Common Auction Conditions 4.3, obliges auctioneers to diligently verify the accuracy of catalogued information through personal inspection and consultation with the seller's solicitor regarding legal matters affecting title and occupation.
a. Specifically that the filed was occupied
b. The standard also require adherence to Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) (when dealing with consumers)
Adherence to Consumer Protection Regulations: The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, Regulation 5, section (b), stipulates that a commercial practice satisfies its conditions if it contains false information, leading to untruthfulness concerning any matters outlined in paragraph (4), or if it deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in any manner regarding those matters, even if the information is factually correct. Furthermore, it must cause or be likely to cause the average consumer to make a transactional decision that they would not have otherwise undertaken.
a. Section 5, section (c) pertains to any failure by a trader to uphold a commitment outlined in a code of conduct that the trader has pledged to adhere to.
b. Section 6, In Brief - Misleading Actions and Omissions: A commercial practice is deceptive if it contains false information or presents information in a manner that deceives (or is likely to deceive) the average consumer, thereby influencing their decision to make a purchase. An omission is also deceptive if it conceals material information that the average consumer requires to make an informed decision, or if it is presented in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous, or untimely manner.
c. The omission of the field being occupied by horses, which is clearly evident in the EIG images and should have been noticeable to the person capturing the photographs at that time or the individual compiling them for your auction site, is a pertinent example of a potential violation of these regulations.
The contract contains special conditions but also a section titled “Extra special conditions” which contains:-
- The BUYER acknowledges that it has not entered into this agreement in reliance upon any statements or representations made by or on behalf of the SELLER its agent or solicitors.
- The Property is sold in its present state and condition, and the SELLER is under no obligation to sell the Property with vacant possession.
- The Property is sold as seen and the BUYER accepts that the SELLER has no knowledge whatsoever of the Property.
So basically, the legal pack is not worth the paper it is written on.
I bid on the land based on the information presented, I can't believe that they did not know the land was at least occupied as they would have seen this when taking the pictures for auction.
I feel that I have been misled by the information presented and should be allowed to withdraw but they are now threatening legal action unless I complete in 10 days !
What are my options with this?
Thanks, Paul
Comment