Back To “Property Misrepresentation Claims in Practice

191 thoughts on “Property Misrepresentation Claims in Practice”

  1. Partner bought his house 9 years ago and neighbour is hated by the local community as he dumps furniture in the communal car park, steals parcels (companies leave them with him if people are out, and he then says he never got them), has been in and out of prison for assault and driving offences, and has drug dealers coming and going daily. If you move the furniture, you get a screw in your tyre etc. If you report to the police or social services, they say they can’t do anything, or he doesn’t answer the door to them. The community live in fear and it’s actually a very affluent area (this person is jobless but given the house and a huge allowance as part of a trust fund.
    Partner said he spent money on solicitors when he first moved there to look into sueing seller, but it didn’t sound possible. He’s worried he’ll lose a lot of money when it comes to selling.

    1. Thank you for your comment.

      The situation sounds awful and we are sorry to hear of this.

      In short, if exchange or completion took place more than 6 years ago, the prospect of you being able to pursue the seller for any misrepresentation claim is quite low. Certain limitation periods apply to certain claims. After a certain period of time, they cannot be legally pursued.

      As for selling the property, there is no duty on a seller to volunteer information or indeed answer any specific questions about the property. However, the practical effect of this is that the buyer might be reluctant to proceed. Would you proceed if you asked a seller if there were any reasons to believe that a dispute in relation to the property might arise but the seller refused to answer the question?

      The only requirement, to avoid a possible potential misrepresentation claim against you as a seller, is that you are crystal clear and open about the information you provide. If you have explained something in a way that is not misleading and the buyer proceeds, it cannot be said that seller has caused the buyer a loss. The buyer knew the situation, it was described in factually accurate terms and the buyer chose to proceed. If the buyer suffers a loss, this was their choice.

      We are not aware of any situation where it would be acceptable to mislead a buyer about something. The only thing the seller could do is say nothing or not answer the question. This is not misleading as the buyer knew as much before as they did after the unanswered question was asked. The buyer did not “change their position” based on the absence of an answer to the question.

  2. Hi,

    Can you help.

    I purchased a flat that stated there was storage heaters, however, the heaters we’re electric and not storage heaters. The cost of replacing 4 heaters back to storage heaters is around £2500. The seller has said that this is something my survey should have picked up, however, I didn’t check the survey as on the fixtures and fittings form it stated storage heating. This is important in an apartment as there is no access to gas and electricity is the only form of heating. This means that the cost of running the flat is more than anticipated. If this had been identified, I would have factored this into my offer. Please could you advise whether I have a legitimate claim with the small claims court.

    1. Thank you for your comment.

      We cannot say whether or not you have a legitimate claim without considering the evidence in detail and would not be able to advise on our website in any event. We would need to consider the contractual position along with the relevant evidence, which may of course be limited to just the description of the heaters that you were given. In all likelihood the issue would turn on what a Court would consider was intended to be asked and conveyed by the question about the heating i.e. was it intended and reasonable to believe that the seller’s description of the heaters was as you believed it to be. Also, it may be relevant whether or not you inspected the property and looked at the heaters.

      The cost of replacing them may also not necessarily be the same as the loss you have suffered. Normally, the loss would be based on diminution in value. This is the difference between what the property was worth and what someone would pay for it knowing about the issue. We would have to rely on input from a suitably qualified surveyor to tell us what that difference in price would be.

  3. Hi,

    I have purchased a property however the seller has breached the TA6 and TA10 form.

    1. They left two rooms without a light bulb which was left in an unsafe condition – the property is in Leicester and I’m from London

    2. Not provided a key for the garage door yet they’ve ticked all keys to doors and windows will be provided.

    3. Have not left the property in a clean condition – they’ve claimed they had a professional cleaner to clean the house however I have proof it was not left in a good state.

    All three points were ticked on the form.

    I have claimed a total of £77.46 however they are not willing to pay it.

    These are the reasons why:
    As previously advised the Garage was not sold with a key our client never had one when purchasing the property herself

    It is also not a legal requirement to clean a property, however, our client did confirm the property was cleaned and hoovered and had a professional cleaner to clean the kitchen cupboards.

    The solicitor we both use was the same to make the process quicker however I feel there was no support on my side at all.

    Do I have a legitimate claim here?

    1. Thank you for your comment.

      We cannot give specific advice on our website, only general guidance.

      If something was said in the property information forms that the buyer relied on when entering into the contract to purchase the property, and what was said was factually untrue, then there may be a claim for misrepresentation.

      However, in any sort of litigation, proportionality is a key aspect of any matter. Put in the most blunt of terms (and we genuinely do not mean to cause offence), whilst the legal system does exist to compensate aggrieved individuals, for the sake of £77.46 we would question how wise it would be to commence any sort of claim. A broken lightbulb that has (presumably) not caused any damage, a change of a lock and an argument about what is or is not a clean and tidy state is unlikely to be worth pursuing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I accept the Privacy Policy