Estate agent ordered to pay £4,000 bill after breaking law
Other Local Government stories
- 'Dangerous, ugly and boring' Bradford named least-attractive city
- Six social workers sacked by Birmingham City Council
- Council chief warns £500 of rent arrears is 'tipping point to disaster'
- Man jailed for £50,000 benefit fraud
- Lords defeat throws free social care for elderly plans into doubt
Advertisement
A court has ordered estate agent Foxtons Ltd to pay more than £4,000 in fines and costs for failing to give accurate information about a property for sale.
Magistrates heard that a would-be buyer had been interested in buying a home in Hackney through the firm's branch at 355-357 Upper Street, Islington.
But the estate agent did not tell the buyer that the £450,000 property was designated not as residential, but as "work/live" - to be used as part-business, part-residential.
At a late stage the buyer discovered the property was "work/live" and that they faced a £20,000 bill for planning covenants to convert the property to solely residential use.
They pulled out of the sale, having already run up conveyancing fees in excess of £600.
A complaint was made to Trading Standards in Hackney, who referred the case to Islington Council.
At Highbury Magistrates' Court Foxtons Ltd, of Building One, Chiswick Park, 566 Chiswick High Road, London, W4 5BE admitted an offence under section 1 of the Property Misdescription Act 1991, was fined £3667, and ordered to pay £680 costs and a £15 victim surcharge.
Foxtons Ltd has also agreed to pay the conveyancing fees run up by the would-be buyer.
Cllr Greg Foxsmith, Islington Council's executive member for environment, said: "We don't like taking local businesses to court and would much rather avoid it.
"But we have a duty to make sure the consumer rights of our residents, businesses and others are protected.
"If necessary, this will include legal action against businesses who break the law, and it was right that we acted in this case."
The case was heard on Tuesday, November 3.
The UK's most up-to-date social housing and public sector news website

Simon Seaton - http://www.fridaysmove.com
Commented 15 weeks ago
This is a fascinating story as clearly has potential far reaching implications. What happens if an agent does not reveal that the lease is short and therefore requires a lease extension ?
It is not clear whether there was a Home Information Pack in this case. If so Foxtons may have had a potential defence in saying that the fact that the property was a live/work unit should have been revealed in the property information questionnaire (PIQ) The second part of the PIQ asks “Leases often permit or prevent certain types of activity relating to the use of the property, those referred to in question (25) are examples. Are there any other conditions or restrictions in the lease which could significantly impact on a person’s”.
Simon Seaton
http://www.fridaysmove.com/