The complaint

James, a prospective buyer, made an offer on a property marketed by an agent. The offer was accepted, and James instructed a surveyor. The survey identified that the property was of non-standard construction. Following this, James withdrew from the transaction.

He complained to the agent and then escalated the matter to The Property Ombudsman.

The agent’s marketing material did not mention that the property was of non-standard construction. James said this was material information and that, had he known earlier, he would not have made an offer or incurred the survey cost. He therefore sought reimbursement of the £575 fee he paid for the survey.

The agent said the non-standard construction only became apparent through the survey and that the property did not appear materially different from a standard build. It also said the property was later sold without issue and declined to reimburse the survey cost. The agent did not co-operate with the Ombudsman’s investigation.

The investigation

The Property Ombudsman found that the construction type was material information and should have been made available to an average consumer.

While the non-standard construction was not explicitly identified in the marketing material, features visible in the property photographs should have prompted the agent to make further enquiries with the seller and alert prospective buyers to the possibility.

Furthermore, the agent could not have expected James to identify from the marketing information or the viewing that either the property was of a non-standard construction type, or the implications of that fact.

The agent should have alerted prospective buyers to the possibility that the construction was non-standard.”

Consequently, the agent should have alerted prospective buyers, including James, to the possibility that the construction was non-standard.

While the Ombudsman noted that the property was later sold without issue, that did not mean that the construction type was not material information. Consequently, the Ombudsman was not persuaded that a subsequent successful transaction was relevant to the outcome of James’ complaint.

It was also noted that the agent failed to respond to requests for additional information during the investigation and therefore reached a decision on the available evidence.

The outcome

Overall, the Ombudsman was satisfied that the agent had failed to provide timely material information, resulting in James’ wasted costs.

The agent was directed to pay £575 to reimburse the cost of the survey. The Ombudsman also found that James had suffered inconvenience through the time spent pursuing a transaction that ultimately did not proceed.

This case highlights the importance of identifying and disclosing material information at the earliest opportunity. Where information suggests a property may be of non-standard construction, agents should make further enquiries and ensure prospective buyers are given clear information.