191 thoughts on “Property Misrepresentation Claims in Practice”
We have very recently bought a property (May 19th) . The vendor answered NO to the Qs on the SPIF re disputes and neighbours and specifically said when asked about their relationship with the neighbour that they had an amicable relationship . There was a redundant (no longer necessary ) agricultural easement going over our land to a barn which can now be accessed from the neighbours land. When this land was developed in 2016 the access hadn’t been used for 15 years but we have recently heard that the neighbours insisted on starting using it (which we were OK about when we bought as it didn’t feel like a big deal as the farmer only came a couple of times a week). However, within 5 weeks of us moving in the neighbour put in a Class Q prior approval notice wholly reliant on our land to give the proposed barn conversion light/air and access from OUR garden! Our neighbours’ solicitor repeatedly confirmed for them that they can’t use a limited agricultural access for residential purposes however they couldn’t accept this and have spent six weeks causing nuisance/harm/intimidation culminating in their arrest for common assault/ABH/criminal damage and carrying an offensive weapon. They have now been forced to withdraw the Class Q but are still VERY VERY ANGRY. Not only for not getting to own this land but now being stopped from converting the barn because they don’t own our land.
Subsequent to moving in we have heard that when our land was being sold our neighbour physically assaulted the old man selling the land lifting him in the air and shaking him. We have heard that he then caused a whole lot of issues during the build making life as difficult as possible and built a large side extension on his barn (without planning permission) to block the view from our property down the valley. We have heard that he has a reputation in the village for being a bully and we are not the only people he has terrorised. We have also heard that when he moved here he put a padlock on the community well and stopped the whole village from using it even though the well isn’t in his Title he now pumps gallons of water out of it every week. The whole village seems to be very frustrated by this.
So even though our vendors hadn’t involved the police should they have disclosed what the neighbours from hell are really like and their reputation in the village? From what we are hearing the reason our vendor rented this property and then put his recently married daughter and son-in-law in the property for years was to just let time pass before selling the property. Neighbours have said that they when they heard the property was for sale that our neighbours from hell must have “settled down”. In other words the vendor knew they couldn’t sell if the neighbours from hell hadn’t settled down and accepted that they didn’t get to own this land. Obviously they HADN’T actually settled down just the daughter and son-in-law had been told to not do anything to upset him. Neighbours have said that our vendor and family like many in the village just kept their heads down. Thus the Class Q five weeks after we moved in and the loss of 6 weeks of our lives and counting.
So did our vendor have a duty to disclose EVERYTHING that had happened since he purchased the land in 2014? Did they have a duty to disclose our neighbours from hell reputation in the village? We haven’t met anyone yet without some dreadful story to tell us about our neighbours. We doubt though that any of them would go on record as they are all good friends of our vendor. So do we have any comeback on being left in this dreadful situation with the neighbours from hell.
Thank you for your comment. This is a situation that we have come across before. There is no requirement for the seller to volunteer information but as you identify, there is a question on the property information form as regards whether there are any disputes involving the property or a neighbouring property. And it does seem that there have been incidents which could lead to a dispute regardless. It would seem therefore that their answer to this question may have been incorrect and knowingly so, and also that this false statement was made on a document you were entitled to rely upon, based on what you have said.
The issue here, though, will be proving these incidents occurred. Unless there has been Police or local authority involvement and a third party disclosure application can be made against them, if the neighbours are not willing to give evidence to that effect, this may be difficult. It is possible to in theory witness summons them to attend at trial but this is a high-risk strategy as there is no guarantee they will not simply deny everything. You may also wish to consider taking action against the problem neighbour in tandem with this claim both to mitigate your losses and also because the neighbours may be more willing to give evidence on such a claim which can then be used in a misrepresentation claim.
If you therefore wish to take this further please feel free to telephone our Litigation team for a confidential discussion.
I am in the process of buying a c. 100 year old property. The area I am purchasing in has a high clay content, and therefore it is not unusual for properties to experience settling etc over time.
Especially in the context of the very hot summer/drought, I was wondering to what extent the sellers should disclose such potential issues both historic and more recent re settling/indications of subsidence? Is there a clear definition/distinction of both? My surveyor has already visited (before summer) with no issues noted, but what for example an issue developed between his visit and completion? What if the seller was to redecorate etc prior to completion?
The TA6 form does not address structural issues if I understand correctly, rather only planning/access/services etc?
Thank you for your comment. Firstly, please note that the Property Information Form is intended to be completed and read by lay persons and Courts have ruled that as such it is not there to try to trip up buyers or sellers, and that there is no hard and fast definition of such things. However, it is a representation on which a buyer can rely and is entitled to rely, and usually does rely. Therefore it is important that any information given in it must be truthful.
However, at the same time, there is no requirement to volunteer information necessarily. The seller is only required to ensure that where they do volunteer information it is true. That being said, answering “no” to a question about whether you are aware for, for instance, any structural defect is a representation on which the buyer may rely, so if that turns out to be false there may be a claim for misrepresentation there.
You may wish to contact your conveyancing solicitors in respect of this question as they will be better placed to, in the context of the transaction as it currently stands, advise you on filling out the PIF.
So if a seller puts “Seller makes no representations about the property- buyer to rely solely on their own investigations” does that suffice to allow no claim for misrepresentation?
Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately without having seen the contract and other relevant documents we would not be able to give any meaningful answers to this. However, we have written an article on the issue of reliance in misrepresentation claims at https://cunningtons.co.uk/reliance-in-misrepresentation/ which may be of use to you.
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 have very recently bought a property (May 19th) . The vendor answered NO to the Qs on the SPIF re disputes and neighbours and specifically said when asked about their relationship with the neighbour that they had an amicable relationship . There was a redundant (no longer necessary ) agricultural easement going over our land to a barn which can now be accessed from the neighbours land. When this land was developed in 2016 the access hadn’t been used for 15 years but we have recently heard that the neighbours insisted on starting using it (which we were OK about when we bought as it didn’t feel like a big deal as the farmer only came a couple of times a week). However, within 5 weeks of us moving in the neighbour put in a Class Q prior approval notice wholly reliant on our land to give the proposed barn conversion light/air and access from OUR garden! Our neighbours’ solicitor repeatedly confirmed for them that they can’t use a limited agricultural access for residential purposes however they couldn’t accept this and have spent six weeks causing nuisance/harm/intimidation culminating in their arrest for common assault/ABH/criminal damage and carrying an offensive weapon. They have now been forced to withdraw the Class Q but are still VERY VERY ANGRY. Not only for not getting to own this land but now being stopped from converting the barn because they don’t own our land.
Subsequent to moving in we have heard that when our land was being sold our neighbour physically assaulted the old man selling the land lifting him in the air and shaking him. We have heard that he then caused a whole lot of issues during the build making life as difficult as possible and built a large side extension on his barn (without planning permission) to block the view from our property down the valley. We have heard that he has a reputation in the village for being a bully and we are not the only people he has terrorised. We have also heard that when he moved here he put a padlock on the community well and stopped the whole village from using it even though the well isn’t in his Title he now pumps gallons of water out of it every week. The whole village seems to be very frustrated by this.
So even though our vendors hadn’t involved the police should they have disclosed what the neighbours from hell are really like and their reputation in the village? From what we are hearing the reason our vendor rented this property and then put his recently married daughter and son-in-law in the property for years was to just let time pass before selling the property. Neighbours have said that they when they heard the property was for sale that our neighbours from hell must have “settled down”. In other words the vendor knew they couldn’t sell if the neighbours from hell hadn’t settled down and accepted that they didn’t get to own this land. Obviously they HADN’T actually settled down just the daughter and son-in-law had been told to not do anything to upset him. Neighbours have said that our vendor and family like many in the village just kept their heads down. Thus the Class Q five weeks after we moved in and the loss of 6 weeks of our lives and counting.
So did our vendor have a duty to disclose EVERYTHING that had happened since he purchased the land in 2014? Did they have a duty to disclose our neighbours from hell reputation in the village?
We haven’t met anyone yet without some dreadful story to tell us about our neighbours. We doubt though that any of them would go on record as they are all good friends of our vendor. So do we have any comeback on being left in this dreadful situation with the neighbours from hell.
Thank you for your comment. This is a situation that we have come across before. There is no requirement for the seller to volunteer information but as you identify, there is a question on the property information form as regards whether there are any disputes involving the property or a neighbouring property. And it does seem that there have been incidents which could lead to a dispute regardless. It would seem therefore that their answer to this question may have been incorrect and knowingly so, and also that this false statement was made on a document you were entitled to rely upon, based on what you have said.
The issue here, though, will be proving these incidents occurred. Unless there has been Police or local authority involvement and a third party disclosure application can be made against them, if the neighbours are not willing to give evidence to that effect, this may be difficult. It is possible to in theory witness summons them to attend at trial but this is a high-risk strategy as there is no guarantee they will not simply deny everything. You may also wish to consider taking action against the problem neighbour in tandem with this claim both to mitigate your losses and also because the neighbours may be more willing to give evidence on such a claim which can then be used in a misrepresentation claim.
If you therefore wish to take this further please feel free to telephone our Litigation team for a confidential discussion.
I am in the process of buying a c. 100 year old property. The area I am purchasing in has a high clay content, and therefore it is not unusual for properties to experience settling etc over time.
Especially in the context of the very hot summer/drought, I was wondering to what extent the sellers should disclose such potential issues both historic and more recent re settling/indications of subsidence? Is there a clear definition/distinction of both? My surveyor has already visited (before summer) with no issues noted, but what for example an issue developed between his visit and completion? What if the seller was to redecorate etc prior to completion?
The TA6 form does not address structural issues if I understand correctly, rather only planning/access/services etc?
Thank you
Thank you for your comment. Firstly, please note that the Property Information Form is intended to be completed and read by lay persons and Courts have ruled that as such it is not there to try to trip up buyers or sellers, and that there is no hard and fast definition of such things. However, it is a representation on which a buyer can rely and is entitled to rely, and usually does rely. Therefore it is important that any information given in it must be truthful.
However, at the same time, there is no requirement to volunteer information necessarily. The seller is only required to ensure that where they do volunteer information it is true. That being said, answering “no” to a question about whether you are aware for, for instance, any structural defect is a representation on which the buyer may rely, so if that turns out to be false there may be a claim for misrepresentation there.
You may wish to contact your conveyancing solicitors in respect of this question as they will be better placed to, in the context of the transaction as it currently stands, advise you on filling out the PIF.
So if a seller puts “Seller makes no representations about the property- buyer to rely solely on their own investigations” does that suffice to allow no claim for misrepresentation?
Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately without having seen the contract and other relevant documents we would not be able to give any meaningful answers to this. However, we have written an article on the issue of reliance in misrepresentation claims at https://cunningtons.co.uk/reliance-in-misrepresentation/ which may be of use to you.