26 thoughts on “Property Information Form: 7 Key Issues You Should Watch Out For”
I moved into a shared ownership flat in April 2022. On the LPE1, we were told that there was no anticipated S20, being issued in the following 12 months. Shock horror after finding out we are being over charged service. They sent us a S20 saying the drains need fixing. We then found out cctv survey was done in 2021, with no action on housing association’s part as it was too costly. (But cost of living crisis is good time to do it) This was not on any of the documents from my solicitor and housing association document to use didn’t have it either.
Lease said I should get seller to give me a discount. Is this the right way forward?
Not sure we would have moved in if we knew this problem was ongoing since 2017
We cannot say the extent to which the seller may be liable for any misrepresentation. Much would depend on what you were told by them and the contractual terms involved.
As for the LPE1, if it can be said that the landlord made a factually inaccurate statement about anticipated Section 20 notices, there is a possibility of a claim against the landlord for misrepresentation. However, an obvious defence to the matter would be that as at the time the statement was made, they did not envisage a Section 20 notice being served, therefore the statement was not factually inaccurate.
You may be better of considering whether or not there is scope to challenge the reasonableness of any charges in the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) on the basis that the inactivity or possible failure to maintain the property (so far as this is a requirement in the lease, as it probably is) has caused an excessive charge.
My seller said there hasn’t been a complaint on the TA6 form, against his neighbours, but we’ve since found out from the council that there was two complaints, a letter was sent but the issue was resolved and the people who the complaint was about have moved,
Whilst there may be a misrepresentation claim, it is important to think about the practical aspects of your matter. The legal system exists to compensate those that have suffered a loss by the wrongs of others. The Courts are also extremely mindful of the question of proportionality. Put in the most blunt of terms, the Court would not be overly impressed with entertaining a claim where the cost and Court time in pursuing it would be significantly greater than any benefit that the person pursuing the claim would receive.
If the issue has been resolved, it probably is not worth spending time and effort in looking into matters further.
I have purchased a leasehold in a council-owned block.
Before the sale the seller disclosed there will be works on the property, and told us via purplebricks (NOT via the solicitor) that the rateable value calculation is 1%. Which costs £5k.
When our solicitor enquired on the same lines, the enquiry was ignored or told “we’re not sure, we can’t confirm”, we proceeded to exchange on the basis of the message from the seller.
The ratable value is 4%, and the works are £20k.
Do we have a basis for a claim, or will we be told that we cannot trust any information not communicated via a solicitor, and it is our own fault for believing the sellers message at face value.
We are sorry to hear of this. Major works on blocks of flats are always difficult and contentious area. The seller wants to sell before they are hit with a bill but the buyer won’t want the liability for them.
We often see attempts by sellers to avoid drawing attention to prospective charges.
The situation can broadly be summarised as:-
1. It is up to the buyer to make sure they have enough information about service charges and major works before committing to the purchase. This is specifically one of the questions asked in the TA7, leasehold information form.
2. Sometimes it is simply not possible for the seller to know what the precise charge might be. Landlord/freeholders are entitled to serve notices which do not specify the particular cost sometimes. However, details of those notices should be disclosed by the seller if asked about by the buyer.
3. It isn’t unusual to agree some sort of retention of part of the purchase monies to take account of forthcoming charges. The seller doesn’t have to agree to this, but broadly it is an agreement that one of the solicitors retains some monies and when the actual cost of the service charge is known, the cost is deducted from the retention and balance paid to the buyer.
This is a difficult question to consider without seeing more documentation. We are also a little confused about the reference to rateable value, which is something that comes up more often in commercial property matters.
Firstly, we would need to understand the basis of the charge. If it is based on the rateable value, then arguably any misrepresentation may be based on a false statement of law i.e. the factually inaccurate statement was that legally, the rateable value was X%. Normally a statement of law or opinion is not actionable. Only a statement of fact is. There is some case law which supports the argument that a false statement of law is actionable, but it could present an issue for you.
The second issue we see is of reliance. For any misrepresentation claim to exist, the buyer must have relied on what the seller represented. The seller appears to have latterly and effectively said “we don’t know” in which case it is questionable whether or not it can be said you relied on the earlier representation.
We are sorry that we cannot provide more general guidance, but your comment is quite specific and we cannot give specific advice on our website, if only for the fact that, as you can appreciate, we do not have a full understanding of matters.
Delayed completion: what are your options when someone in your chain of property transactions is late? With a group of strangers all working toward completing on the same date, it's a wonder it ever works out on time.
This collection of cases of property misrepresentation claims should remind all of us how important it is to tell the truth on a Property Information Form
Supporting Farleigh Hospice | Limited Places Available We’re delighted to announce that Cunningtons is once again partnering with Farleigh Hospice for the annual Make a Will charity campaign this September! What We’re Offering ✅ Completely FREE Will preparation by our qualified solicitors;✅ Professional legal advice and guidance on making your Will; and of course,✅ Support […]
I moved into a shared ownership flat in April 2022. On the LPE1, we were told that there was no anticipated S20, being issued in the following 12 months.
Shock horror after finding out we are being over charged service. They sent us a S20 saying the drains need fixing. We then found out cctv survey was done in 2021, with no action on housing association’s part as it was too costly. (But cost of living crisis is good time to do it)
This was not on any of the documents from my solicitor and housing association document to use didn’t have it either.
Lease said I should get seller to give me a discount. Is this the right way forward?
Not sure we would have moved in if we knew this problem was ongoing since 2017
Thank you for your comment.
We cannot say the extent to which the seller may be liable for any misrepresentation. Much would depend on what you were told by them and the contractual terms involved.
As for the LPE1, if it can be said that the landlord made a factually inaccurate statement about anticipated Section 20 notices, there is a possibility of a claim against the landlord for misrepresentation. However, an obvious defence to the matter would be that as at the time the statement was made, they did not envisage a Section 20 notice being served, therefore the statement was not factually inaccurate.
You may be better of considering whether or not there is scope to challenge the reasonableness of any charges in the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) on the basis that the inactivity or possible failure to maintain the property (so far as this is a requirement in the lease, as it probably is) has caused an excessive charge.
My seller said there hasn’t been a complaint on the TA6 form, against his neighbours, but we’ve since found out from the council that there was two complaints, a letter was sent but the issue was resolved and the people who the complaint was about have moved,
Thank you for your comment.
Whilst there may be a misrepresentation claim, it is important to think about the practical aspects of your matter. The legal system exists to compensate those that have suffered a loss by the wrongs of others. The Courts are also extremely mindful of the question of proportionality. Put in the most blunt of terms, the Court would not be overly impressed with entertaining a claim where the cost and Court time in pursuing it would be significantly greater than any benefit that the person pursuing the claim would receive.
If the issue has been resolved, it probably is not worth spending time and effort in looking into matters further.
Hi Jon,
I have purchased a leasehold in a council-owned block.
Before the sale the seller disclosed there will be works on the property, and told us via purplebricks (NOT via the solicitor) that the rateable value calculation is 1%. Which costs £5k.
When our solicitor enquired on the same lines, the enquiry was ignored or told “we’re not sure, we can’t confirm”, we proceeded to exchange on the basis of the message from the seller.
The ratable value is 4%, and the works are £20k.
Do we have a basis for a claim, or will we be told that we cannot trust any information not communicated via a solicitor, and it is our own fault for believing the sellers message at face value.
George
Thank you for your comment.
We are sorry to hear of this. Major works on blocks of flats are always difficult and contentious area. The seller wants to sell before they are hit with a bill but the buyer won’t want the liability for them.
We often see attempts by sellers to avoid drawing attention to prospective charges.
The situation can broadly be summarised as:-
1. It is up to the buyer to make sure they have enough information about service charges and major works before committing to the purchase. This is specifically one of the questions asked in the TA7, leasehold information form.
2. Sometimes it is simply not possible for the seller to know what the precise charge might be. Landlord/freeholders are entitled to serve notices which do not specify the particular cost sometimes. However, details of those notices should be disclosed by the seller if asked about by the buyer.
3. It isn’t unusual to agree some sort of retention of part of the purchase monies to take account of forthcoming charges. The seller doesn’t have to agree to this, but broadly it is an agreement that one of the solicitors retains some monies and when the actual cost of the service charge is known, the cost is deducted from the retention and balance paid to the buyer.
This is a difficult question to consider without seeing more documentation. We are also a little confused about the reference to rateable value, which is something that comes up more often in commercial property matters.
Firstly, we would need to understand the basis of the charge. If it is based on the rateable value, then arguably any misrepresentation may be based on a false statement of law i.e. the factually inaccurate statement was that legally, the rateable value was X%. Normally a statement of law or opinion is not actionable. Only a statement of fact is. There is some case law which supports the argument that a false statement of law is actionable, but it could present an issue for you.
The second issue we see is of reliance. For any misrepresentation claim to exist, the buyer must have relied on what the seller represented. The seller appears to have latterly and effectively said “we don’t know” in which case it is questionable whether or not it can be said you relied on the earlier representation.
We are sorry that we cannot provide more general guidance, but your comment is quite specific and we cannot give specific advice on our website, if only for the fact that, as you can appreciate, we do not have a full understanding of matters.