A home owner is said to be suing the firm of estate agents that sold him the property, after he discovered it had been substantially mis-measured.
The Mirror has named neither the vendor – whom it simply identifies as Kevin – nor the agent.
The property is a one-bedroom flat in central London, bought by Kevin for £695,000 in June 2017.
He spotted the property in the agent’s window, went on a viewing and was given the details.
He arranged a mortgage through a broker, and during the application process handed over the property details, including the room sizes.
Last year, he decided to sell up and went to a different agent for a valuation.
This agent took measurements and valued it at £675,000.
There were, says the Mirror, “various reasons” but one factor was that the overall size of the flat was 265 sq ft less than Kevin had been told by the original agent.
He commissioned a surveyor to measure up again. The surveyor came up with slightly different measures, but overall, still 258 sq ft less.
The Mirror says it is “clear” Kevin over-paid for the flat, which had been valued from incorrect measurements, and had unintentionally misled the mortgage company.
The paper says that Kevin is now pursuing a claim against the first agents.
The Mirror says that the agent would be liable under consumer protection law, and that it is not an isolated incident.
The alleged mis-measurement adds up to the size of a double bedroom or sitting room – and there are even complete micro-flats for sale in Manhattan measuring 265 sq ft.
Comments (20)
Funny this should make the news when it did…
…saw a listing yesterday. The blurbery stated “massive home here!”
The Floorplan stated that the property was some 1300 sq.ft. (121.4sq.m. to be exact)
However, the EPC stated the property to be 78 sq.m.
A quick tot-up, using the measurements stated on the floorplan confirms the property to be 900sq.ft (give or take 2%)
As the property is actually a #RElisting, originally “Just added” on 25 September 2018, I can only assume that whenever it has been shoved in front of the public’s nose, this gross over-egging – amounting to 44.4% of the true floor area, has gone unchecked and uncorrected.
Maybe Frau Renshaw will do a piece in her own inimitable style to rival – nay, eclipse – that of The Mirror?
Over to you, mein host!!
Did he buy this flat “off plans”? The newspaper story suggest he did but was the tour of the site or the finished flat?
As he seems to have been happy owning/living at the property for two years and only when the market TWO years later says it has a lower value, does the measurements spring up as a concern but never before. Hasn’t market values dropped? Vendor looking for excuses to recover loss on sale that has nothing to do with measurements? Vendor not doing their own due diligence when it came to exchange of contracts if buying off plans and is trying to blame someone else. Market value is not specific to square footage … that went out the windows decades ago for residential property and is only a guide to a value band.
The newspaper headline is agent could face jail … this whole story is typical gutter tabloid journalism?
Good luck with that!
The House Price Index shows a 1.9% drop in flat prices in Greater London since June 2017. The drop is likely to be higher in “Central London” which was severely affected by the whole EU vote thingy (sorry, I just can’t bear to use the dreaded “B” word). That equates to about £14,000 in this instance.
Mortgage valuers are expected to measure the flat: https://www.rics.org/globalassets/rics-website/media/upholding-professional-standards/sector-standards/real-estate/rics-property-measurement/rics-property-measurement-2nd-edition-rics.pdf
I can imagine that a busy surveyor might take a shortcut and rely on the agent’s details but he’d be very foolish to do so and put his insurance at great risk. All comparable evidence would have been gathered with the square footage in mind. If the valuer relied on the agent’s measurement then he was an idiot.
The EPC would also have a measurement on it. The agent’s should have double checked themselves before publishing details with such a discrepancy. The buyer should have double checked and challenged the agent before spending any money on his purchase.
The question in the end is not the price paid but more whether or not the agent broke the Consumer Protection Regulations with a misleading measurement. That is immediately quantifiable and it appears that they did. VERY stupid.
The owner’s quantum of damages, in light of changes in HPI might amount to perhaps £6,000. It’s not a huge amount but it looks like the agent are going to have to cough up!
If the selling agent couldn’t get the measurements right or more likely relied on an old floorplan and didn’t bother to check them, well, they deserve everything coming their way for showing a total lack of care and not even getting the basics of their job done. The Property Misdescriptions Act has been around since 1991 and covers this. To be 258sq feet out is unforgivable regardless of the market conditions being the probably cause of the drop in value.
“The Property Misdescriptions Act has been around since 1991 and covers this.”
The Property Misdescriptions Act was repealed in October 2013. You may wish to update your records accordingly.
Words fail me.
Since when do surveyors (even when just doing a valuation survey) accept an agent’s marketing materials as cold hard fact. The only person I can see to blame here is the surveyor (which given the absolute nightmare I am currently having with one firm’s blatant incompetence doesn’t surprise me one jot)- he is there to ensure both the lender and purchaser are paying a fair and accurate market value.
Spot on.
Personally speaking, as estate agents we have a duty to be diligent when measuring property, providing sizes/areas.
Whether the property re-sale price was affected or not, we have a duty to get the details right.
If a genuine mistake was made, put your hands up. Better still, already have procedures in place to ensure the risk of error is (as much as it can be) eliminated.
I’m not sure how a flat’s size can be mistakenly boosted by c. 20 sq.m! Further, I’m fairly certain the agent’s particulars said not to rely on the sizes etc. as they were simply for illustration. Interesting.
‘I’m fairly certain the agent’s particulars said not to rely on the sizes etc. as they were simply for illustration.’
The ability to hide behind that kind of disclaimer went out of the window years ago.
Erm… So ‘Kevin’ made an offer, which was accepted. Then Kevin made a mortgage application… paid for a survey – which would have provided a valuation based upon factors including the size of the property which would have been stated on the valuation.
Which makes you question the Mirror’s statement “it is “clear” Kevin over-paid for the flat, which had been valued from incorrect measurements, and had unintentionally misled the mortgage company”.
Three years on, and the ‘value’ of said flat has decreased by the alleged sum of £20k – which equates to £75 per square foot for the ‘missing’ 265 sq.ft. of floor area… not a lot for central London, I would suggest, and would indicate the actual size of the flat to be somewhere around nine thousand square foot based upon that £/ft – which wouldn’t make it a small one bedroom flat by any stretch of the imagination.
Methinks ‘Kevin’ is not only barking up the wrong tree over the cause of the ‘drop’ in value – he also has less legs to stand on than a dog named Woodbine.
No doubt The Mirror will support him…
Many lenders don’t carry out physical vals these days, and those that do don’t always release the valuation report to the buyer if it was a free one.
265 sqft is a massive difference in a 1 bed flat. The market price and subsequent valuation was obviously correct for the flat he bought assuming the stated square footage. It’s not as pee bee says 9000 sqft. Doubt it’s 900 sqft. It was only £695k.That makes the error massive, relative to the size of the flat. No mention of internal or external or balcony terrace space which may account for it.
Mark Connelly
I wasn’t suggesting the flat was 9000 sq.ft… I was pointing out that at £75 per foot – which is what the £20k differential works out at for the ‘missing’ 265 square foot – it would have to be 9000 (675000/75 = 9000).
Hope this clarifies.
Wouldn’t you notice something the size of a missing double bedroom? That approx. 5ft off both the length and breadth of the house.
Wow!! Someone needs to get their measuring equipment calibrated.
99% Chance he’s a trainee solicitor.
I hope naea or what ever they are called help the agent out legally.
Industry is screwed if this sticks. Absolute joke
I wonder if you would feel the same if you purchased a diamond ring on the basis that the jeweller told you it was X number of carats – and then when you came to sell it you were told it was less than the stated carats and therefore worth less?
Then assuming you had proof of the original jeweller’s error I would assume you have a reasonable claim against them.
But – what if the number of carats isn’t the real issue – but that instead you had flawed a previously perfect diamond?
Or that the @rse had dropped out of the market for diamonds?
Carats aren’t everything when it comes to value – and neither are square feet.