A LEADING firm of estate agents has admitted using false information while selling a cottage.

Taylors (West) Ltd pleaded guilty to one charge of using a false written statement when selling a home in Old Hills, Callow End, to Christopher and Jayne Riley in February, 2002.

The property, which had less than half-an-acre of garden, was advertised as having "approximately one acre".

The firm has already paid the couple £3,000 compensation but was ordered to pay £4,480 costs and given a two-year conditional discharge at Worcester Magistrates Court on Tuesday.

Deputy District Judge Cartwright said he did not believe it was a 'deliberate falsehood' but the tax-payer should not bear the cost of the mistake.

In late summer 2001, the Rileys visited the firm's Worcester Road branch in Malvern and said they were looking for a house with at least an acre of land, the court heard.

Branch manager Susan Barnes contacted them about an 18th Century cottage in Callow End, advertised with approximately one acre of gardens.

The couple visited and later bought the property for £190,000.

It was only when re-valuing the house for sale with Andrew Grant estate agents in September 2003, the true size of land was discovered.

"The firm (Andrew Grant) measured the land from the deeds with a computerised digital mapping system," said Lee Marklew, prosecuting for Trading Standards. "There was only 0.41 acres, as opposed to one acre."

As a result, the asking price fell from £380,000 to £360,000.

The court heard that Taylors had never actually measured the land because of 'the unusual shape of the garden'.

In mitigation, Peter Ratliff, defending, claimed the Rileys originally requested a quarter to half an acre of land and both they and their solicitors failed to "pick up" on the issue.

He also said the error was an individual one by branch manageress Ms Barnes, who no longer works for the firm.

"Taylors have recently been awarded the Investors in People mark and steps are being put in place to prevent this happening again," said Mr Ratliff.

The conditional discharge means the company escapes further punishment as long as it does not face any similar charges in the next two years.