191 thoughts on “Property Misrepresentation Claims in Practice”
I am in the process of purchasing a three bed bungalow (auction property). The property was advertised by the agent as having three bedrooms with a floor plan showing bedrooms one and two being upstairs in the converted loft. In addition all other documentation from the agent and the seller describes the property as having three bedrooms. I have checked with the council and the loft conversion has got planning permission and was completed some 38 years ago. My solicitor has asked the seller for proof that the loft conversion was built to the appropriate standards at the time but they cannot produce this information (the conversion was completed prior to them owning the property). This information will need to be passed on to my mortgage company and may result in the sale falling through. Did the agent/seller misrepresent the property? What action can they take to rectify the issue? If the sale falls through can I claim any compensation?
This sounds like a comment we have had before, so you may wish to check through this blog.
In short, it does not sound like a misrepresentation because no promises about the structure of the conversion were given. Unless it can be said that the seller in some way suggested or led you to believe that the loft conversion was to a particular standard, there probably would not be a claim.
If you have a solicitor instructed, they probably have considered this already, but it could be an insurable risk, subject to your lender’s particular lending critera.
We recently purchased a new build property, during the sales process we were told about the development’s lamp post locations, greens, open areas but they didn’t tell us about our road becoming the new bus route or speed humps being fitted outside our house. Neither were highlighted or mentioned on the plans we signed. Since finding out we’ve managed to find out both were part of the s106 agreement. Is this a case of misrepresentation?
A misrepresentation occurs when one of the contracting parties is induced to enter into the contract on the basis of something that is factually inaccurate. It often does not make a difference if that inaccuracy was innocent or deliberate/fraudulent.
However, normally something has to be expressly (or at least reasonably implied) about the particular facts of a situation for a misrepresentation claim to exist. An assumption on the part of the aggrieved party is not the same as saying that the other party to the contract actively misled the other party. Do have a look at our blog on reliance.
In short, whilst we cannot give advice on our website, especially not without knowing all of the relevant facts of the matter, the chances are that unless you were expressly led to believe that the facts you refer to would not arise, there probably isn’t a basis of claim in misrepresentation.
We completed a purchase last August. The seller signed to say the loft, garden and outbuildings would have rubbish removed and the property would be left in a clean and tidy condition. The vendor left waste building materials, recycling/green waste bins full of non-recyclable and non-green waste, discarded clothing, unwanted paint and chemical waste to mention a few things. They left dog and cat litter all over the garden, human hair in the shower and all over the bathroom, dog and cat biscuits and hair everywhere, sticky stains with animal hair in them that were extremely stubborn, filthy interior of windows (hand and lip marks from their children) to name a few gripes. Apparently, the sellers both have mental health issues which they have cited but they could have mitigated at low cost which has left my wife and I feeling less than sympathetic. If we pursued them in court, would we have a case? Would they get mitigation from the judge due to mental health issues? The health issues would not limit their ability to be honest or adhere to the terms agreed on the contract. Thanks in advance…
We do often see situations where buyers have moved into property, after sellers have promised to remove rubbish and leave the property in a clean and tidy state, and do not consider that the seller has complied with this promise.
The basic situation is that yes, it may be a representation, but what is or is not a “clean and tidy condition” is a subjective question. This is a very similar issue to a situation where the seller does not consider that there is a dispute with neighbours but the buyer considers that there is, discovering the issues after they have moved in. This is, again, a fairly common situation to arise.
When it comes to the Court interpreting subjective questions about what the seller and buyer intended to explain and what would be understood, from property information forms (such as the TA6) or otherwise, the Court will apply “common sense”. It will consider what the root of the question or enquiry is aimed at and what a reasonable person would have understood the response to mean. As a result, there is not a “right or wrong” answer to your query or a black and white answer in law. Put into context, to one person who put rubbish in the wrong bin, this would be acceptable, to others this would not.
In answer to your query and what you describe, there is chance that you may have a basis of claim and there is probably a reasonable prospect of success. However, it would not be without its risk as to what or was not a promise given, and the cost associated with getting to Court making that adjudication is unlikely to be cost-effective.
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.
I am in the process of purchasing a three bed bungalow (auction property). The property was advertised by the agent as having three bedrooms with a floor plan showing bedrooms one and two being upstairs in the converted loft. In addition all other documentation from the agent and the seller describes the property as having three bedrooms. I have checked with the council and the loft conversion has got planning permission and was completed some 38 years ago. My solicitor has asked the seller for proof that the loft conversion was built to the appropriate standards at the time but they cannot produce this information (the conversion was completed prior to them owning the property). This information will need to be passed on to my mortgage company and may result in the sale falling through. Did the agent/seller misrepresent the property? What action can they take to rectify the issue? If the sale falls through can I claim any compensation?
Thank you for your comment.
This sounds like a comment we have had before, so you may wish to check through this blog.
In short, it does not sound like a misrepresentation because no promises about the structure of the conversion were given. Unless it can be said that the seller in some way suggested or led you to believe that the loft conversion was to a particular standard, there probably would not be a claim.
If you have a solicitor instructed, they probably have considered this already, but it could be an insurable risk, subject to your lender’s particular lending critera.
We recently purchased a new build property, during the sales process we were told about the development’s lamp post locations, greens, open areas but they didn’t tell us about our road becoming the new bus route or speed humps being fitted outside our house. Neither were highlighted or mentioned on the plans we signed. Since finding out we’ve managed to find out both were part of the s106 agreement. Is this a case of misrepresentation?
A misrepresentation occurs when one of the contracting parties is induced to enter into the contract on the basis of something that is factually inaccurate. It often does not make a difference if that inaccuracy was innocent or deliberate/fraudulent.
However, normally something has to be expressly (or at least reasonably implied) about the particular facts of a situation for a misrepresentation claim to exist. An assumption on the part of the aggrieved party is not the same as saying that the other party to the contract actively misled the other party. Do have a look at our blog on reliance.
In short, whilst we cannot give advice on our website, especially not without knowing all of the relevant facts of the matter, the chances are that unless you were expressly led to believe that the facts you refer to would not arise, there probably isn’t a basis of claim in misrepresentation.
We completed a purchase last August. The seller signed to say the loft, garden and outbuildings would have rubbish removed and the property would be left in a clean and tidy condition. The vendor left waste building materials, recycling/green waste bins full of non-recyclable and non-green waste, discarded clothing, unwanted paint and chemical waste to mention a few things. They left dog and cat litter all over the garden, human hair in the shower and all over the bathroom, dog and cat biscuits and hair everywhere, sticky stains with animal hair in them that were extremely stubborn, filthy interior of windows (hand and lip marks from their children) to name a few gripes. Apparently, the sellers both have mental health issues which they have cited but they could have mitigated at low cost which has left my wife and I feeling less than sympathetic. If we pursued them in court, would we have a case? Would they get mitigation from the judge due to mental health issues? The health issues would not limit their ability to be honest or adhere to the terms agreed on the contract. Thanks in advance…
Thank you for your comment.
We do often see situations where buyers have moved into property, after sellers have promised to remove rubbish and leave the property in a clean and tidy state, and do not consider that the seller has complied with this promise.
The basic situation is that yes, it may be a representation, but what is or is not a “clean and tidy condition” is a subjective question. This is a very similar issue to a situation where the seller does not consider that there is a dispute with neighbours but the buyer considers that there is, discovering the issues after they have moved in. This is, again, a fairly common situation to arise.
When it comes to the Court interpreting subjective questions about what the seller and buyer intended to explain and what would be understood, from property information forms (such as the TA6) or otherwise, the Court will apply “common sense”. It will consider what the root of the question or enquiry is aimed at and what a reasonable person would have understood the response to mean. As a result, there is not a “right or wrong” answer to your query or a black and white answer in law. Put into context, to one person who put rubbish in the wrong bin, this would be acceptable, to others this would not.
In answer to your query and what you describe, there is chance that you may have a basis of claim and there is probably a reasonable prospect of success. However, it would not be without its risk as to what or was not a promise given, and the cost associated with getting to Court making that adjudication is unlikely to be cost-effective.