191 thoughts on “Property Misrepresentation Claims in Practice”
We recently purchased a house about 5.5 km from an RAF base and we asked the seller if this caused noise issues, and were assured via Text Message it didn’t, however having been here now a week it is very clear to us noise is an issue, and flying takes place several hours a day every week day, but, not at weekends. Would this be deemed miss representation as the main thing we were looking for was peace and quiet.
Anything said which is factually inaccurate and that a buyer has relied on when entering into the contract is a potential misrepresentation.
However, it would be necessary to prove that you relied on the misrepresentation when entering into the contract. Put another way, you would likely have to convince a judge that you reasonably believed that there would be no noise issues from a nearby RAF base.
More fundamentally, and likely problematic, would be the fact that a noise nuisance to one person may not be a noise nuisance to another. There is an element of subjectivity with matters such as this and there is a difference between a seller expressing an opinion on whether or not the noise was a problem for them or whether they were saying, as a matter of fact, that no one would have any issues with noise. A statement of someone’s opinion is not actionable because someone else disagrees with that opinion. Only a statement of fact which is not accurate is actionable.
Your matter would likely turn on what the text message, given its ordinary meaning, would mean to a reasonable person reading it.
Hi Please I would like some advice on a property purchase I made at a time I was going through a lot of stress in my personal life that I did not bother reading any of the paper work . I relied on the seller’s oral information about the age of the property. When I asked when the property was built she said 1959 I thought that was okay as long as it was less than a hundred years old . So I proceeded on the basis that the property was not that old and therefore the level of repair would not be significant. However I later found out that the property age is actually 1930 to 1949 which means the property is way older than I had been made to believe by the seller. Since moving in , the amount of repair I have done and still doing is causing me a lot of financial and emotional stress , the roof tiles are so brittle and has been falling down the driveway so I am asking people to avoid standing in the drive way to prevent being hit by the falling tiles so far I have spent over 3000 pounds on repairing the roof and I have now decided it is better to replace the entire roof to avoid spending more on repairs . 2 Quotes obtained for roof replacement is around 10000 pounds per quote . The seller also lied that they intend to build a timber house far behind my property, she pointed her finger inside the bushes far in to indicate where they intend to build a home , this led me to believe that it was far inside but only to find out the building garage is so close to our boundary and it’s giving me a shade in the mornings. Had I been given the right information I would not have made the offer so high . I believe I had paid too much considering the amount of repairs I have had to do . I have also replaced the driveway completely because it was so damaged and constituted a hazard which cost almost 5 thousand pounds . When I came to view the property they covered the driveway with several cars it was impossible to see the level of damage . I would appreciate your advice . I am really stressed out about the extent of repairs and it’s very clear that I paid too much . I have been deceived .
Thank you for your comment. We cannot give specific advice on our website, just general guidance which should not be considered a substitution for informed legal advice.
For a misrepresentation claim to exist, the buyer must have relied on the false statement of fact made by the seller.
Whilst we would need to review matters in much more detail to form a proper view, from what you have written we think it is unlikely that you would have a claim. There are several possible risk factors here but the main reason for this is that it cannot realistically be said that you relied on what the seller told you.
You have said that you were only prepared to purchase a property that was less than 100 years old, because you had formed a view that maintaining it would be less burdensome than a property older than this. If the property was built in 1930, it is still less than 100 years old and would still have met your criteria.
In determining reliance, the Courts will consider whether or not the person bringing the claim has “changed their position”, as this is a primary indication of reliance. Put another way, unless the buyer can prove that they would not otherwise have purchased the property or would otherwise have behaved differently, it cannot be said that they have “changed their position” based on what the seller has said to them. As you would still have purchased the property because it is less than 100 years old, we think it is unlikely that you would be able to successfully prove that you relied on the misrepresentation about the age of it; you would have proceeded to purchase the property even if you were told it was built between 1930 and 1949, as it would still be less than 100 years old.
If your surveyor was instructed to investigate and report back on the issues that you are now experiencing but failed to identify any possible problems, then you may have a professional negligence claim against your surveyor.
As for the location of the subsequent build by the seller, there may be a basis of claim in misrepresentation. However, we suspect that you would have some serious evidential issues. You would have to prove that the seller had pointed to a specific location and also convince the Court that your reliance on this was not an unreasonable interpretation of the “statement” that the seller had made. Put another way, it is a general principle of law that “he who alleges must prove”. The burden of proof, or threshold, is “on the balance of probabilities”. In plain English, this means that you would have to prove that there is more than a 50% possibility where the seller indicated the build would be and that it was not an unreasonable interpretation of the statement. Unless the seller admits this, we think you would struggle to discharge the burden of proof.
Hi, we purchased a new build property from a small-scale local developer last year and found out that the property was not connected to the public sewer as had been stated in the TA6 property information form and the Water and Drainage search. Following investigations from the water board, and an admission by the developer that that this is their responsibility to fix, the developer has been instructed to address the issue under the Water Industry Act 1991. Whilst this is good news, this feels like a misrepresentation case, potentially based on negligence and has caused us a great deal of stress and inconvenience. I’d be interested to know your thoughts about this – thank you.
Before considering any claim, thought must be given to the loss that has been suffered. With the exception of a few types of cases, if there has been no loss or damage, there will be no claim. Trespass for example, is what is called ‘actionable per sale’, meaning that there need not be a loss to take action to stop it.
If the developer has agreed to rectify matters, there is a potential argument that there has been no loss. Whilst diminution in value, namely the difference between what was paid for the property and what it was worth with the defect, would ordinarily be the measure of damages the Court would apply, the Court does have discretion and can sometimes award the cost of repairs. If the repairs or rectification solves the issue, then it would probably not be in your interests to pursue a claim.
Compensation, damages, would not generally be available for stress and inconvenience alone. The exception to this is normally when a contract is entered into for enjoyment. For example, if a package holiday was poor, then damages for loss of enjoyment would be a head of loss.
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.
We recently purchased a house about 5.5 km from an RAF base and we asked the seller if this caused noise issues, and were assured via Text Message it didn’t, however having been here now a week it is very clear to us noise is an issue, and flying takes place several hours a day every week day, but, not at weekends. Would this be deemed miss representation as the main thing we were looking for was peace and quiet.
Thank you for your comment.
Anything said which is factually inaccurate and that a buyer has relied on when entering into the contract is a potential misrepresentation.
However, it would be necessary to prove that you relied on the misrepresentation when entering into the contract. Put another way, you would likely have to convince a judge that you reasonably believed that there would be no noise issues from a nearby RAF base.
More fundamentally, and likely problematic, would be the fact that a noise nuisance to one person may not be a noise nuisance to another. There is an element of subjectivity with matters such as this and there is a difference between a seller expressing an opinion on whether or not the noise was a problem for them or whether they were saying, as a matter of fact, that no one would have any issues with noise. A statement of someone’s opinion is not actionable because someone else disagrees with that opinion. Only a statement of fact which is not accurate is actionable.
Your matter would likely turn on what the text message, given its ordinary meaning, would mean to a reasonable person reading it.
Hi
Please I would like some advice on a property purchase I made at a time I was going through a lot of stress in my personal life that I did not bother reading any of the paper work . I relied on the seller’s oral information about the age of the property. When I asked when the property was built she said 1959 I thought that was okay as long as it was less than a hundred years old . So I proceeded on the basis that the property was not that old and therefore the level of repair would not be significant. However I later found out that the property age is actually 1930 to 1949 which means the property is way older than I had been made to believe by the seller. Since moving in , the amount of repair I have done and still doing is causing me a lot of financial and emotional stress , the roof tiles are so brittle and has been falling down the driveway so I am asking people to avoid standing in the drive way to prevent being hit by the falling tiles so far I have spent over 3000 pounds on repairing the roof and I have now decided it is better to replace the entire roof to avoid spending more on repairs . 2 Quotes obtained for roof replacement is around 10000 pounds per quote . The seller also lied that they intend to build a timber house far behind my property, she pointed her finger inside the bushes far in to indicate where they intend to build a home , this led me to believe that it was far inside but only to find out the building garage is so close to our boundary and it’s giving me a shade in the mornings. Had I been given the right information I would not have made the offer so high . I believe I had paid too much considering the amount of repairs I have had to do . I have also replaced the driveway completely because it was so damaged and constituted a hazard which cost almost 5 thousand pounds . When I came to view the property they covered the driveway with several cars it was impossible to see the level of damage .
I would appreciate your advice . I am really stressed out about the extent of repairs and it’s very clear that I paid too much . I have been deceived .
Thank you for your comment. We cannot give specific advice on our website, just general guidance which should not be considered a substitution for informed legal advice.
For a misrepresentation claim to exist, the buyer must have relied on the false statement of fact made by the seller.
Whilst we would need to review matters in much more detail to form a proper view, from what you have written we think it is unlikely that you would have a claim. There are several possible risk factors here but the main reason for this is that it cannot realistically be said that you relied on what the seller told you.
You have said that you were only prepared to purchase a property that was less than 100 years old, because you had formed a view that maintaining it would be less burdensome than a property older than this. If the property was built in 1930, it is still less than 100 years old and would still have met your criteria.
In determining reliance, the Courts will consider whether or not the person bringing the claim has “changed their position”, as this is a primary indication of reliance. Put another way, unless the buyer can prove that they would not otherwise have purchased the property or would otherwise have behaved differently, it cannot be said that they have “changed their position” based on what the seller has said to them. As you would still have purchased the property because it is less than 100 years old, we think it is unlikely that you would be able to successfully prove that you relied on the misrepresentation about the age of it; you would have proceeded to purchase the property even if you were told it was built between 1930 and 1949, as it would still be less than 100 years old.
If your surveyor was instructed to investigate and report back on the issues that you are now experiencing but failed to identify any possible problems, then you may have a professional negligence claim against your surveyor.
As for the location of the subsequent build by the seller, there may be a basis of claim in misrepresentation. However, we suspect that you would have some serious evidential issues. You would have to prove that the seller had pointed to a specific location and also convince the Court that your reliance on this was not an unreasonable interpretation of the “statement” that the seller had made. Put another way, it is a general principle of law that “he who alleges must prove”. The burden of proof, or threshold, is “on the balance of probabilities”. In plain English, this means that you would have to prove that there is more than a 50% possibility where the seller indicated the build would be and that it was not an unreasonable interpretation of the statement. Unless the seller admits this, we think you would struggle to discharge the burden of proof.
Hi, we purchased a new build property from a small-scale local developer last year and found out that the property was not connected to the public sewer as had been stated in the TA6 property information form and the Water and Drainage search. Following investigations from the water board, and an admission by the developer that that this is their responsibility to fix, the developer has been instructed to address the issue under the Water Industry Act 1991. Whilst this is good news, this feels like a misrepresentation case, potentially based on negligence and has caused us a great deal of stress and inconvenience. I’d be interested to know your thoughts about this – thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Before considering any claim, thought must be given to the loss that has been suffered. With the exception of a few types of cases, if there has been no loss or damage, there will be no claim. Trespass for example, is what is called ‘actionable per sale’, meaning that there need not be a loss to take action to stop it.
If the developer has agreed to rectify matters, there is a potential argument that there has been no loss. Whilst diminution in value, namely the difference between what was paid for the property and what it was worth with the defect, would ordinarily be the measure of damages the Court would apply, the Court does have discretion and can sometimes award the cost of repairs. If the repairs or rectification solves the issue, then it would probably not be in your interests to pursue a claim.
Compensation, damages, would not generally be available for stress and inconvenience alone. The exception to this is normally when a contract is entered into for enjoyment. For example, if a package holiday was poor, then damages for loss of enjoyment would be a head of loss.