Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Consent to sell issued - now awaiting an appointed receiver?

  • 05-10-2016 5:13pm
    #1
    lady2014
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1 ✭


    Hi All,

    I'm hoping someone can offer some insight or advice with my issue. We sale agreed on a property much earlier in the year, only afterwards were we told of the banks involvement. Eventually in July, the bank consented to sell however after having yet another conversation with the E.A. today, he now stipulate he is waiting for the bank (AIB) to appoint him as receiver - which is something called mortgage repossession? Contracts cannot be drawn up until the happens. I fell we are given excuse after excuse - that is when he actually answers his phone!
    I see a lot of threads about consent to sell and how long it takes, but nothing about mortgage repossession or making the EA the receiver!

    Obviously, we would love to withdraw our offer however with the property marker being so poor - it's really not an option. Any advice would be much appreciated and thanks in advance for any help or insight anyone has to offer!


Comments

  • #2
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,815 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    Just keep searching for something else. Give yourself extra options. If you find something better you can pull out of that sale.


  • #3
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    You should complain to the PSRA. The agent implied he had authority to sell and involved you in viewings and surveys on false pretences. You are out of pocket and have lost valuable time and opportunities due to this behaviour.


  • #4
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    You should complain to the PSRA. The agent implied he had authority to sell and involved you in viewings and surveys on false pretences. You are out of pocket and have lost valuable time and opportunities due to this behaviour.

    EA was given instruction to put it on the market, he is not the seller nor has he "authority to sell", that lies solely with the vendor.

    If you instruct an EA to market your house for sale, could he sell it without your authority?


  • #5
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    davo10 wrote: »
    EA was given instruction to put it on the market, he is not the seller nor has he "authority to sell", that lies solely with the vendor.

    If you instruct an EA to market your house for sale, could he sell it without your authority?

    The EA put it on the market when he knew that he had to be appointed receiver to sell it. He should have waited till he was appointed receiver before putting it on the market. The EA knew there was no vendor capable of instructing him when he "put it on the market". The EA was committing a fraud on the public and in particular the o/p.


  • #6
    Dardania
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Dardania


    Mightn't be such a bad thing - you may be dodging a price increase in the meantime...


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    The EA put it on the market when he knew that he had to be appointed receiver to sell it. He should have waited till he was appointed receiver before putting it on the market. The EA knew there was no vendor capable of instructing him when he "put it on the market". The EA was committing a fraud on the public and in particular the o/p.

    Wrong, the EA does not have to be appointed the receiver, that is the remit of the bank to nominate. The EA didn't "put it on the market", the vendor did. And again, the EA recieves instruction from the vendor, it is up to the vendor to have all the necessary legal requirements in effect. The EA is just facilitating the sale, he/she has no interest in this beyond the marketing of the property based on the details provided by the vendor. There is no fraud by the EA (if there is, be a good chap and post the correct link to it, not part of something else which has no baring on this "fraud") he was acting on the instructions of the bank, if the op wants to pick a fight, he/she should pick it with the bank through their solicitor.

    No matter how many times you post something, it doesn't make it right.


  • #8
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    davo10 wrote: »
    Wrong, the EA does not have to be appointed the receiver, that is the remit of the bank to nominate. The EA didn't "put it on the market", the vendor did. And again, the EA recieves instruction from the vendor, it is up to the vendor to have all the necessary legal requirements in effect. The EA is just facilitating the sale, he/she has no interest in this beyond the marketing of the property based on the details provided by the vendor. There is no fraud by the EA (if there is, be a good chap and post the correct link to it, not part of something else which has no baring on this "fraud") he was acting on the instructions of the bank, if the op wants to pick a fight, he/she should pick it with the bank through their solicitor.

    No matter how many times you post something, it doesn't make it right.

    The EA is saying that he has to be appointed receiver in order to progress the sale. either he is lying now or he should have had himself appointed receiver before marketing the property. Either way he is a lying, cheating thief.

    No matter how many times you post something, it doesn't make it right.


Advertisement