191 thoughts on “Property Misrepresentation Claims in Practice”
Hi – I purchased a property last year that came with a private road leading to 3 properties. The house I purchased owns the private road with the 2 other properties having shared access across it – however the driveways for all 3 properties are not shared. The hatched shared part stops at the boundary to my driveway on the title deeds. However my neighbours continually use my driveway to access a gate to the rear of their property. There is a very narrow pathway adjacent to my driveway but it has bushes, foliage on it so is not passable. This path, whilst inadequate, is within the boundary of my neighbours property and borders my driveway so if cleared could be used by them to access their back gate although given the width, wouldn’t be ideal. They did have a garage also that had a rear door and a garage door on the front which would also have given them access from front to back but they converted this into living accommodation approx 5 years ago. It would appear my neighbours have always used what is my drive as their outside access from front to rear of their property and vice versa which is in my eyes trespassing. In the the PIF my vendors stated “No” to the question “Are there any other rights or arrangements affecting the property” Do I have any recourse for misrepresentation with my Vendor or should I have noticed the gate and questioned whether the neighbours used the driveway to go back and forth ? Thank you.
Thank you for your comment. It seems that there are two issues here, and the one will inform the outcome of the other.
Firstly, the issue of rights of way and access. Whether there is a right for the neighbours to use this part of the driveway that you consider to be your property and the use of which you consider to be trespass will depend upon the exact wording and title plans of the parties’ conveyances and other documents. I would need to inspect these to determine whether in fact such a right does exist for the neighbour to use these.
If it does not, then I would be able to advise you as to whether action can be taken against the neighbour and what the likely cost of that might be.
If it does exist, then there may be the possibility of taking an action in misrepresentation against the person who sold the property to you if, as you say, they put on the property information form that there were no other rights or arrangements affecting the property, when the reverse was in fact true. However you will need to show that they knew that this right existed or could reasonably have known about it, and that had you known about it, you would not have bought the property at the sums for which you paid for it. Whether that is actionable as a representation on which you were entitled to rely will also depend on the exact wording of the Property Information Form and also the content of the contract, which may contain non-reliance or entire agreement clauses which may affect your right to claim against them.
As regards the actual losses you have suffered as a result of this and thus the value of your claim, that is also something we would need to consider in order to decide whether such a claim might be economical to pursue.
Thank you – there’s currently no right of way for the neighbours. I had already taken my title deeds/ plans etc to a property solicitor to check this. On checking, I asked neighbours not to use my drive however they continue to. I’ll possibly be in touch though to see whether I can pursue the issue with neighbours further and also check re PIF / vendors possibly misrepresentation. Thanks again
If you have had a past dispute, for example claims that your building works have damaged neighbors property, that were resolved via insurance but led to an ongoing unfriendly and sometimes uncomfortable relationship I understand I would need to include the dispute on the PIF. But would I need to mention the ongoing unfriendly/uncomfortable nature of the relationship with the neighbors?
Thank you for your comment. The Property Information Form is intended to be completed, read, and understood by a lay person and as such there are no hard and fast rules for what constitutes a dispute in respect of the questions asked. If there has been a claim resolved by insurance this is as you say something you would need to disclose as a previous dispute. As regards your ongoing relationship, though, we cannot meaningfully comment upon this without proper and full knowledge of the complete picture and context of that relationship, though the usual wording on a Property Information Form is whether there have been disputes involving the property and if they are merely personal between you and your neighbour over an unrelated matter that may not necessarily be something you must disclose. However, this will obviously depend very much on the exact circumstances and also on the wording of the specific question you have been asked so I think therefore you may wish in the first instance to discuss the matter with the solicitors acting for you in this transaction.
Hi, We purchased a leasehold flat in August 2019 and on the LPE1 form, in boxes 4.8 and 4.8.1 where the landlord is asked about anticipated section 20 works expected within the next 2 years, the landlord answered “anticipated” and in the further description box stated that “internal redecoration works would be required” – no reference was made to external redecoration works. In addition to this, the TA7 form we received from the vendor stated that no external redecoration works were anticipated within the next 3 years.
Fast forward to January 2020 (5 months after we purchased the property) we received a letter from the land lord stating that external redecoration works were required and that a “substantial contribution” would be required from each of the leaseholders. We have since received a letter (in April 2021) stating that the total cost of the works is £50k with our share being £17k. This is almost equal to the deposit that we put down on the flat and if we had been aware of such a substantial cost when we were purchasing the property we would not have bought it.
Do you think the above would be sufficient for a misrepresentation claim? And if so, would it be against the landlord or the vendor?
Thank you for your comment and apologies for the delay in responding. From what you have said this may found a claim in misrepresentation but it is not clear cut. One generally only is liable in misrepresentation if one makes a false statement; it is very rare that one can commit a misrepresentation by omission. Therefore you would have to show that they specifically knew, or could reasonably have known, that when they were filling out the property information forms, that there were section 20 works envisaged. The issue therefore will be whether you can show that the seller knew, or could reasonably know, that such works were in fact envisaged.
If you wish a confidential discussion about this further then please feel free to contact our Litigation team.
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 – I purchased a property last year that came with a private road leading to 3 properties. The house I purchased owns the private road with the 2 other properties having shared access across it – however the driveways for all 3 properties are not shared. The hatched shared part stops at the boundary to my driveway on the title deeds. However my neighbours continually use my driveway to access a gate to the rear of their property. There is a very narrow pathway adjacent to my driveway but it has bushes, foliage on it so is not passable. This path, whilst inadequate, is within the boundary of my neighbours property and borders my driveway so if cleared could be used by them to access their back gate although given the width, wouldn’t be ideal. They did have a garage also that had a rear door and a garage door on the front which would also have given them access from front to back but they converted this into living accommodation approx 5 years ago. It would appear my neighbours have always used what is my drive as their outside access from front to rear of their property and vice versa which is in my eyes trespassing. In the the PIF my vendors stated “No” to the question “Are there any other rights or arrangements affecting the property” Do I have any recourse for misrepresentation with my Vendor or should I have noticed the gate and questioned whether the neighbours used the driveway to go back and forth ?
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment. It seems that there are two issues here, and the one will inform the outcome of the other.
Firstly, the issue of rights of way and access. Whether there is a right for the neighbours to use this part of the driveway that you consider to be your property and the use of which you consider to be trespass will depend upon the exact wording and title plans of the parties’ conveyances and other documents. I would need to inspect these to determine whether in fact such a right does exist for the neighbour to use these.
If it does not, then I would be able to advise you as to whether action can be taken against the neighbour and what the likely cost of that might be.
If it does exist, then there may be the possibility of taking an action in misrepresentation against the person who sold the property to you if, as you say, they put on the property information form that there were no other rights or arrangements affecting the property, when the reverse was in fact true. However you will need to show that they knew that this right existed or could reasonably have known about it, and that had you known about it, you would not have bought the property at the sums for which you paid for it. Whether that is actionable as a representation on which you were entitled to rely will also depend on the exact wording of the Property Information Form and also the content of the contract, which may contain non-reliance or entire agreement clauses which may affect your right to claim against them.
As regards the actual losses you have suffered as a result of this and thus the value of your claim, that is also something we would need to consider in order to decide whether such a claim might be economical to pursue.
I will be available to discuss this further if you contact the Litigation team in the Braintree office.
Thank you – there’s currently no right of way for the neighbours. I had already taken my title deeds/ plans etc to a property solicitor to check this. On checking, I asked neighbours not to use my drive however they continue to.
I’ll possibly be in touch though to see whether I can pursue the issue with neighbours further and also check re PIF / vendors possibly misrepresentation.
Thanks again
If you have had a past dispute, for example claims that your building works have damaged neighbors property, that were resolved via insurance but led to an ongoing unfriendly and sometimes uncomfortable relationship I understand I would need to include the dispute on the PIF. But would I need to mention the ongoing unfriendly/uncomfortable nature of the relationship with the neighbors?
Regards
Thank you for your comment. The Property Information Form is intended to be completed, read, and understood by a lay person and as such there are no hard and fast rules for what constitutes a dispute in respect of the questions asked. If there has been a claim resolved by insurance this is as you say something you would need to disclose as a previous dispute. As regards your ongoing relationship, though, we cannot meaningfully comment upon this without proper and full knowledge of the complete picture and context of that relationship, though the usual wording on a Property Information Form is whether there have been disputes involving the property and if they are merely personal between you and your neighbour over an unrelated matter that may not necessarily be something you must disclose. However, this will obviously depend very much on the exact circumstances and also on the wording of the specific question you have been asked so I think therefore you may wish in the first instance to discuss the matter with the solicitors acting for you in this transaction.
Hi,
We purchased a leasehold flat in August 2019 and on the LPE1 form, in boxes 4.8 and 4.8.1 where the landlord is asked about anticipated section 20 works expected within the next 2 years, the landlord answered “anticipated” and in the further description box stated that “internal redecoration works would be required” – no reference was made to external redecoration works. In addition to this, the TA7 form we received from the vendor stated that no external redecoration works were anticipated within the next 3 years.
Fast forward to January 2020 (5 months after we purchased the property) we received a letter from the land lord stating that external redecoration works were required and that a “substantial contribution” would be required from each of the leaseholders. We have since received a letter (in April 2021) stating that the total cost of the works is £50k with our share being £17k. This is almost equal to the deposit that we put down on the flat and if we had been aware of such a substantial cost when we were purchasing the property we would not have bought it.
Do you think the above would be sufficient for a misrepresentation claim? And if so, would it be against the landlord or the vendor?
Many thanks,
Octavia
Thank you for your comment and apologies for the delay in responding. From what you have said this may found a claim in misrepresentation but it is not clear cut. One generally only is liable in misrepresentation if one makes a false statement; it is very rare that one can commit a misrepresentation by omission. Therefore you would have to show that they specifically knew, or could reasonably have known, that when they were filling out the property information forms, that there were section 20 works envisaged. The issue therefore will be whether you can show that the seller knew, or could reasonably know, that such works were in fact envisaged.
If you wish a confidential discussion about this further then please feel free to contact our Litigation team.