288 thoughts on “Dealing with property auction issues”
Hi,
We’ve bought a property at a modern method auction and paid the reservation fee but not yet exchanged.
We’ve had a survey done and it states that there is evidence of flooding in the basement with standing water present. The exact cause if which is unknown, either high water table or a leak of some kind and is historical causing other issues including fungal decay and damp issues.
I’ve look at the sellers enquiries and where they were asked ‘Is the property affected, or does it contain: flooding? They’ve answered ‘no’
Do we have a case against the seller misrepresenting the property and so be able to claim back the reservation fee we’ve paid to the auction house?
The answer to your query is that you probably do have a basis to allege misrepresentation. If you were expressly informed that the property had never been affected by flooding but you have evidence that this statement was factually inaccurate (i.e. evidence to suggest that during the period of ownership, the sellers experienced flooding).
Also, we do not really understand how you have purchased a property but not exchanged. Normally the highest bid would be selected at the end of the auction and this would be accepted. In effect, this would be the exchange of contracts.
Do feel free to get in touch if you would like to consider matters in more detail.
A field was sold off in plots in a back to back sale. The completion date was bought forward with 7 days notice. Upon completion we discovered an Article 4 on field which we missed on searches as was a different road name and village. The article 4 means any fence or gate needs planning permission. 2 years later we are still trying to get land registered. The neighbours, who were very vocal about a planning application for fence and gate, never mentioned until 2 years later that they owned the entrance and track, which we were told was reserved land with a 6m track. The reserved land came up for auction and our neighbours have built a gate leg fence with a second gate right acriss the track leaving 3ft access, and keep taking our lock off of our gate and putting their own lock on. saying it is their gate. The track that they have built on is subject to the Article 4 map, but they keep referring to a 1950 land registry map with a different boundary line. Are we able to overturn the sales as we no longer have an unrestricted access 6 metres wide, or does this become a boundary dispute. We have contacted the council as we think they breached the Article 4. But why wait 2 years before speaking up. If we try and overturn the sale as misrepresented access, track and coordinates, how do we ensure that the seller does not just dissolve the company? Which they look like they do regularly as does the auction house.
Thank you for your comment and we are sorry to hear about this. Disputes with neighbours can become extremely stressful.
From what you have written, there are quite a number of points which we would need to look into in more detail. In respect of your particular query regarding “overturning” the sales (by which we understand to mean “rescinding” or “cancelling” this is a possibility but subject to the Court’s discretion. Ultimately, if the Court decides damages are a suitable remedy, this is what it will reward.
Turning to the substantive elements of your comment, it might be the case that there is scope to argue misrepresentation or perhaps a breach of duty. We suspect that this is less likely to do with the unrestricted access in itself being smaller than was (presumably) explained to you and more to do with the presence of something which is an incumbrance on the title (and a planning condition might be such). There is some recent case law on the point (SPS Groundworks & Building Ltd v Ms Satvinder Kaur Mahil [2022] EWHC 371 (QB)). In this particular case, the land was also auctioned. Despite the fact that the seller might have discovered the issue (an overage agreement) had they looked further, the Court, on appeal, said that the seller had failed to comply with their common law duty to disclose this particular issue, being an incumbrance.
Without going into more detail with you, we cannot be certain whether or not this case has any relevance to your matter, but please do feel free to get in touch if you would like to explore matters further.
I won a property in auction and I have send deposit which form the contract. Two weeks later the auctioneer called that the seller do not want to sell again because they feel that the property is been seller lower than current market rate of which i notice the seller is getting greedy. I have contact the seller solicitor and they are not willing to release information about the seller despite the fact that I am still one is going to pay for their services to the seller which is on the legal pack. My deposit is still the seller solicitor and I have already serve them Notice to complete without no response from them. I want know if I have a case with seller if I go through litigation process.
From what you have written, it appears that you have served notice to complete and the seller has failed to complete. In this case, the remedy would be to rescind the contract or alternatively, pursue a claim for specific performance, obliging the seller to transfer the property to you at the agreed contractual price.
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 […]
Planning for the future as we get older is a vital part of life – that’s why many of us provide for ourselves with pensions and Wills. However, one of the most important tools available to us is often neglected: Lasting Powers of Attorney. According to CanadaLife UK, 78% of UK adults don’t have a […]
Cunningtons help with "Your Legal Journey Through Life". We cover key areas: your first home, your relationships and family law, then growing families, employment matters, dispute resolutions, property investments, and planning your estate. We focus on continuity, trust, understanding clients, and personal service by offering the same legal team throughout life.
Hi,
We’ve bought a property at a modern method auction and paid the reservation fee but not yet exchanged.
We’ve had a survey done and it states that there is evidence of flooding in the basement with standing water present. The exact cause if which is unknown, either high water table or a leak of some kind and is historical causing other issues including fungal decay and damp issues.
I’ve look at the sellers enquiries and where they were asked ‘Is the property affected, or does it contain: flooding? They’ve answered ‘no’
Do we have a case against the seller misrepresenting the property and so be able to claim back the reservation fee we’ve paid to the auction house?
Regards
Ben
Thank you for your comment.
The answer to your query is that you probably do have a basis to allege misrepresentation. If you were expressly informed that the property had never been affected by flooding but you have evidence that this statement was factually inaccurate (i.e. evidence to suggest that during the period of ownership, the sellers experienced flooding).
Also, we do not really understand how you have purchased a property but not exchanged. Normally the highest bid would be selected at the end of the auction and this would be accepted. In effect, this would be the exchange of contracts.
Do feel free to get in touch if you would like to consider matters in more detail.
A field was sold off in plots in a back to back sale. The completion date was bought forward with 7 days notice. Upon completion we discovered an Article 4 on field which we missed on searches as was a different road name and village. The article 4 means any fence or gate needs planning permission. 2 years later we are still trying to get land registered. The neighbours, who were very vocal about a planning application for fence and gate, never mentioned until 2 years later that they owned the entrance and track, which we were told was reserved land with a 6m track. The reserved land came up for auction and our neighbours have built a gate leg fence with a second gate right acriss the track leaving 3ft access, and keep taking our lock off of our gate and putting their own lock on. saying it is their gate. The track that they have built on is subject to the Article 4 map, but they keep referring to a 1950 land registry map with a different boundary line. Are we able to overturn the sales as we no longer have an unrestricted access 6 metres wide, or does this become a boundary dispute. We have contacted the council as we think they breached the Article 4. But why wait 2 years before speaking up. If we try and overturn the sale as misrepresented access, track and coordinates, how do we ensure that the seller does not just dissolve the company? Which they look like they do regularly as does the auction house.
Thank you for your comment and we are sorry to hear about this. Disputes with neighbours can become extremely stressful.
From what you have written, there are quite a number of points which we would need to look into in more detail. In respect of your particular query regarding “overturning” the sales (by which we understand to mean “rescinding” or “cancelling” this is a possibility but subject to the Court’s discretion. Ultimately, if the Court decides damages are a suitable remedy, this is what it will reward.
Turning to the substantive elements of your comment, it might be the case that there is scope to argue misrepresentation or perhaps a breach of duty. We suspect that this is less likely to do with the unrestricted access in itself being smaller than was (presumably) explained to you and more to do with the presence of something which is an incumbrance on the title (and a planning condition might be such). There is some recent case law on the point (SPS Groundworks & Building Ltd v Ms Satvinder Kaur Mahil [2022] EWHC 371 (QB)). In this particular case, the land was also auctioned. Despite the fact that the seller might have discovered the issue (an overage agreement) had they looked further, the Court, on appeal, said that the seller had failed to comply with their common law duty to disclose this particular issue, being an incumbrance.
Without going into more detail with you, we cannot be certain whether or not this case has any relevance to your matter, but please do feel free to get in touch if you would like to explore matters further.
I won a property in auction and I have send deposit which form the contract. Two weeks later the auctioneer called that the seller do not want to sell again because they feel that the property is been seller lower than current market rate of which i notice the seller is getting greedy. I have contact the seller solicitor and they are not willing to release information about the seller despite the fact that I am still one is going to pay for their services to the seller which is on the legal pack. My deposit is still the seller solicitor and I have already serve them Notice to complete without no response from them. I want know if I have a case with seller if I go through litigation process.
Thank you for your comment.
From what you have written, it appears that you have served notice to complete and the seller has failed to complete. In this case, the remedy would be to rescind the contract or alternatively, pursue a claim for specific performance, obliging the seller to transfer the property to you at the agreed contractual price.