Let Property

I am extremely disappointed with my experience with Let Property, regarding the recent purchase attempt that fell apart due to a lack of critical information being disclosed upfront. My dispute with Let Property is they carry out a 29 prechecks and provide an investors pack that cover all crucial information an investor. From this, their policy doesn't allow viewing as they have carried out all the important checks. I entered into the transaction and I only discovered after paying the refundable Buyer’s Premium and initiating the process that the property had a mixeduse designation—something that directly impacted its eligibility majority of mortgage lenders and ultimately caused the valuation to default to nil. When I approached Let Property, I was informed that the property was vetted and everything is in order. So from a buyers point the investors pack covers everything. Their 'Basic mortgageability assessment', one of the 29 checks, is to ensure that the property has a high likelihood of being mortgageable. However that was not the , the property was catogorised as undesirable by Connells Survey & Valuation Ltd. This crucial information is important to any buyer, as it requires specialist lenders to progress. There are a only a limited number of lenders but charge significantly higher interest rates making the purchase nonviable. Let Property claims to carry out thorough prevetting and due diligence, but clearly, this crucial detail either wasn’t identified and was pushed back onto the seller. They’ve acknowledged that the issue emerged too late in the process, yet they have refused to offer any refund, citing contract terms—even though the deal became unviable due to circumstances outside my control and failing there own mortgageability assessment. Their support team were delayed in response and their actions haven’t matched their stated commitment to customer service and stated they cant include all the information of the building but a simple few lines to conclude the use of the building is expected at the very least. For an evaluation to come back as nil, I think this information was quite crucial. In situations like mine, where a buyer is left unable to proceed due to information that should have been disclosed upfront, I would expect discretion and fairness, not rigid adherence to their nonrefundable terms. I must emphasise that this information was not included on the investors pack, my only source of information, and it has significant loss on on investment. I pursued with an approved lender of theirs and did not manage to obtain an agreed mortgage within the 60day period. Their policy stated that once this time has lapsed I am entitled a full refund should I not be able to get a mortgage and again was refused. I now have lost a premium of £3000 and this does cover the associated cost incurred by the evaluation and solicitors fee.