Misrepresentation In Property Sales: the consequences of not telling the truth when selling property
Buying property is a big investment for anyone, so it’s only right that the purchaser should be satisfied with what they are buying.
Likewise, the seller should be entitled to some comfort in knowing that once their property is sold, that is the end of the matter.
The Seller’s Property Information Form
During the conveyancing process, the buyer will ask the seller questions about their property. These are called pre-contract enquiries and requisitions on title. As part of the process of selling a property, the seller will normally complete a Property Information Form. Much of the time, the form used is the Law Society’s Property Information Form, sometimes referred to as the Seller’s Property Information Form.
The idea behind this process is that the buyer satisfies themselves by asking the seller relevant questions and the seller answers them. If the seller has been as upfront as possible in response to those questions, the seller cannot normally be held liable for anything else they say.
What happens if the seller’s information is not accurate?
We see a lot of cases where a seller, sometimes unintentionally but sometimes deliberately, misleads a buyer by answering a question on the Seller’s Property Information Form or during negotiations incorrectly – or partly incorrectly so as to create a misleading impression. The buyer then purchases the property and moves in, only to discover that the information provided by the seller was inaccurate.
We have dealt with cases where a seller has:
- failed to disclose existing disputes with neighbours;
- suggested that a property does not suffer from a flooding issue when it does;
- inaccurately maintained that the property does not suffer from Japanese knotweed when it does;
- stated that the boundaries are in one place or have not moved when in fact they are not or have been changed;
- suggested that the property does not suffer from damp, when it does;
- explained something in relation to an existing tenant which is incorrect; and
- stated that there are no planning or other proposals nearby which could have an effect on the property.
… the list goes on.
In all of these cases, the buyer may very well have a claim for misrepresentation, depending on what the seller said about the position.
If you are interested to read about real cases which have been decided by the Courts, examples can be found in our article Property Misrepresentation in Practice.
Misrepresentation is a false statement of fact that induces a party into a contract causing a financial loss. It does not have to be the sole inducement, but the buyer would have to have relied upon the statement to bring a claim. Read more about reliance in misrepresentation claims here.
Depending on whether or not the seller innocently, negligently or fraudulently answered the questions inaccurately in the Property Information Form, the buyer may be entitled to claim damages from the seller. In some cases, the buyer will be entitled to ‘rescind’ the contract. This means that the buyer is entitled to their money back and to return the property to the seller. This does not happen very often and a Court will normally award only damages.
Normally the measure of damages awarded to a buyer is based on ‘diminution in value‘, or the difference between what a buyer would have paid for the property knowing about the issue, and what they actually did pay for it. This may not necessarily reflect the actual cost to the buyer in rectifying the issue. However, in some cases, additional damages can be awarded to cover other expenses incurred.
Diminution in value
To give an example of how diminution in value is calculated, we have acted for insurers in professional negligence claims against surveyors, who have failed to identify that a property suffered from subsidence. The measure of damages was based on diminution in value. The cost to the buyer in underpinning the property to stop the subsidence was greater than the actual loss suffered. This is because the property was situated in a highly sought after location with a large rental market, meaning that the impact on the value of the property was less.
Based on the fact that a hypothetical purchaser would have seen the property as an investment opportunity that could provide a return by renting it to tenants, rather than considering it a family home for life, the expert’s opinion was that a hypothetical purchaser would have been more likely to negotiate a smaller reduction in the purchase price than the full cost of the repairs, to make sure that their offer was accepted by the seller and because even with the defect, the property represented a good investment.
How can a seller ensure that their buyer will not bring a claim for misrepresentation against them?
Sadly there is no way to be 100% certain that a buyer may not make a claim later. All a seller can do is minimise the risk of this as much as possible.
Although completing the Seller’s Property Information Form is not mandatory, it is unlikely that a buyer will proceed with the purchase if their questions are not answered.
Therefore when completing the Seller’s Property Information Form, the seller should answer questions as fully and honestly as possible. We often advise clients to think about what they would want to know about the property if they were buying it, and how they would react if they bought a house with problems that were not disclosed.
If a seller is not certain about an answer to a question in the Seller’s Property Information Form, they should think carefully about whether they want to answer it.
What happens if the seller’s replies were accurate at the time they were given to the buyer, but by the time of exchange the information has changed?
In some circumstances, a seller is under a continuing obligation to ensure that their replies to enquires are accurate up to the date of exchange of contracts. Therefore if there is a change of circumstances meaning that the original statement is no longer accurate, there is every chance the seller would be obliged to update the buyer.
The Seller’s Property Information Form also specifically tells the seller that in the event that something happens which would mean that their replies are no longer accurate, they should notify their solicitor of this, who should in turn notify the buyer’s solicitor.
If they don’t do this, the seller risks a potential claim against them for misrepresentation.
What if a seller knows something which is not specifically asked about by the buyer?
Have you bought a house with problems which were not disclosed? Unfortunately, this is unlikely to give rise to a claim for misrepresentation.
The basic position here is ‘caveat emptor’, or ‘buyer beware’. If a buyer does not ask the seller a question, they cannot then look to the seller for compensation if they discover something that they do not like about the property. It is up to the buyer to satisfy themselves that they want to purchase the property and ask questions about it which are important to them.
As the basic position in a property transaction is buyer beware, it follows that if no statement or answer is given by the seller, the buyer cannot be said to have relied on it to enter into the transaction.
Having said this, sometimes (but this is unlikely unless a special or fiduciary relationship exists) a misrepresentation can take place by a failure to mention something material to the transaction.
In some cases, a “half-truth” or explanation which is accurate on the face of it but misleading about the true circumstances of the matter can also amount to a misrepresentation.
The moral of the story
Sellers should be upfront about any issues that affect the property and buyers should take all steps they consider appropriate to obtain the information that they want before committing to a purchase.
If a seller doesn’t know or is unsure of the answer to a buyer’s question, they should consider not answering the question. However, by not providing a response the seller could be putting their sale at risk, as the buyer may not be prepared to proceed without an answer.
Sometimes a seller will qualify their response, but this in itself is not always enough to prevent a claim. It is important to discuss it with your property solicitor. You can be sued
If you are interested to read about real cases which have been decided by the Courts, examples can be found in our article “Property Misrepresentation Claims in Practice”.
If you are facing a claim for property misrepresentation or believe that you have a claim yourself, please do feel free to get in touch.
This article is for information only. It is not a precise statement of the law and should not be relied upon as or for a substitution for proper legal advice.
The circumstances of every case are different. We are always happy to discuss your circumstances to see if we can assist.
Questions people ask about misrepresentation
As you can see, buying and selling property is not always as simple as you think. We’ve tried to address some common questions below, but if you are still unsure please feel free to contact us for an answer.
> What is property misrepresentation and what are property misrepresentation claims?
There is no specific definition of this but broadly this could be described as a claim which arises by reason of a misrepresentation occurring during a property transaction.
> Can I sue the seller if I bought a house with problems that were not disclosed?
A seller does not have to volunteer information about a property. If a seller stays silent on something, a representation has not been made and a claim for misrepresentation can arise.
> What compensation will I receive in a property misrepresentation claim?
Damages for all types of misrepresentation cases are intended to put the claimant in the position that they would have been in had the misrepresentation not been made.
In property misrepresentation cases, this is normally the difference between what you paid for the property and what it would have been worth, had the truth been told. This is called diminution in value.
> What should a seller disclose when selling their property?
The seller does not have to disclose anything but if they do not, then a buyer might decide not to take the risk of buying the property.
Normally a seller will fill out a property information form. For residential purchases, the Law Society published a standard property information form for this purpose, called a TA6 or a TA7.
> What if the seller lied on the property information form?
If a party to a contract deliberately misrepresented facts relating to the property with the intention of misleading the buyer, a fraudulent misrepresentation can arise. Often, such a representation does not need to be in writing.
> Do I have to declare planning applications, like a neighbour’s extension?
There is case law on this and it will normally depend on whether or not you have received a formal planning notice.
Have a look at our article Property Misrepresentation Claims in Practice for a case on this point.
Hi – I have just recently completed (January) on my purchase only to find out the sellers of my property have not disclosed the following two facts on the seller information form:-
1 – They had a long running dispute with my neighbour due to him failing to control vermin in his property resulting in vermin in my property (I have had 2 other neighbours confirm that they were in dispute and had disclosed this to the relevant local authority departments during their 5 year ownership of my property on many an occasion).
2 – They had constructed a rear extension without suitable building regulation approval and again omitted to disclose this also (again a neighbour has confirmed this was constructed within their tenure) stating on the seller information form that they had made no structural alterations to the property at anytime.
Any help would be gratefully received as I’m finding the whole situation very stressful indeed.
I would like to know my chances of pursuing a mis-representation claim.
Thank you for your comment John.
A long running dispute, or indeed any dispute with neighbours, should generally need to be disclosed in the property information form, so there may be a case for misrepresentation here.
As for the extension, failing to explain that there was building regulation compliance may not amount to misrepresentation. If they suggested in some way (and normally in writing) that the extension did comply with regulations, then this could be a misrepresentation. The existence of an extension would also ordinarily trigger your solicitor to ask for details of the same. If this did not happen, there may be a claim here for professional negligence. We would need to consider the terms of their retainer and what, for example, was disclosed during the transaction, including what was written in any survey undertaken.
However, it appears here that your sellers suggested that they did not undertake any alterations during their period of ownership but you believe this to be untrue. You will need to obtain evidence of this. A starting point for this could be planning applications, which are publicly available. However, if the extension is within “permitted development”, no application may have been required, so you might be relying on the evidence of neighbours alone.
If you would like us to look into the position for you in more detail, please do feel free to get in touch.
Thank you Mark for your prompt and detailed reply.
We have been in touch with our insurers and we were informed that since this was an existing issue they would not be able to help us. I do not know if that protocol is correct?? . Also we are finding out that the previous owner had lied on many other numerous things. We ended up right in middle of it all.
Best regards
Ben
Thank you for you further comment, Ben. We have responded to you by email in the interests of maintaining confidentiality.
Following our move into the property we purchased endof February we have uncovered major issues with the house. Some of the paperwork we found in the house that the owner left behind revealed that the roots of the trees adjacent the house are causing the house to subside. The owner had written a letter to the owner of the land next door, which I have a copy of, asking him to apply for the the trees to be taken of the Tree Protection Order so they could be fell so to stop the subsidance. The trees are still there. The owner had covered up cracks in the building by placing wooden boards over them. In the garage he used other materials to hide the cracks. In the property information form he never mentioned that he had a dispute with owner of land next door and he covered up the cracks to hide the major damages. The owner has acted in a fraudulent and dishonest way and went against the legal protocols when selling a property.
This is a very sad situation as we had purchased this property so to look after our elderly parents and now all is in jeopardy.
What can be done legally from our part?
Thank you for your comment Ben. This must be very distressing.
Subsidence can be a serious issue and the first thing you need to do is get hold of your buildings insurer if you haven’t already. They will normally appoint a structural engineer to monitor any movement in the property and decide what can be done. You may also have legal cover. You do not always have to appoint your insurer’s panel solicitors, if a claim exists.
Sometimes the effects of subsidence (and heave) can be historical and there is no further risk of movement as a result of this. If further cracks appear, then this can sometimes be as a result of weather conditions. Houses do also tend to expand and contract in periods of warm and cold weather which can lead to superficial cracks appearing. Sometimes settlement cracks appear in property, depending on its age. Obviously we cannot give you advice in this respect; this is the remit of a suitably qualified structural engineer. Our comments are based on historical cases we have acted on because the cause of the cracking is important to establish.
If the cracking is as a result of subsidence as a result of desiccation (when the roots draw moisture from soil, causing it to contract), then an arboriculturalist might need to be appointed, to confirm which trees are causing the problems and advise on the best way to deal with the situation. Sometimes, removing the trees completely can do more harm than good, as any roots would quickly rot and this can cause problems. Sometimes lopping the trees over a period of time is more effective and this can gradually reduce the roots. A lot would depend on the species of tree and how pervasive the root structure is. Sometimes concrete root barriers or underpinning is recommended. Again, this is all something for an expert to advise on.
From a legal point of view, there might be a claim against your neighbour for nuisance and trespass, if the tree roots are encroaching onto your land and causing the damage. This is why experts are required, to prove that there is an encroachment, that it is this causing the damage and the extent of the damage and potential financial loss.
You may also have a claim for misrepresentation against your seller, if there has been a deliberate concealment of issues. Normally there would have to be some sort of untrue statement of fact. The risk here would be that merely stating that there were no “disputes” with the neighbour might in fact be true or a statement of opinion, depending on how someone defines the word “dispute”. There is no legal definition of this and the Courts will generally apply a test based on what a reasonable layperson would understand from the question. Certainly the letter you have would indicate that a dispute existed and would likely be a good starting point.
In addition to this, it might also be worthwhile trying to establish if the sellers have ever made any insurance claims or had underpinning undertaken, as the standard seller’s property information form contains questions on this which, if answered falsely, could also bolster a misrepresentation claim.
As for your surveyor, whether or not this is something that they should have spotted is also something to consider. This will depend on the scope of their instructions and the extent of the survey they were instructed to undertake.
Subsidence and heave cases can become technically complex and as a result of this, can be expensive in terms of the legal costs. This is why your insurers should be the first port of call. However, do feel free to get in touch with us if you would like to discuss further.
Hi. I purchased a property January 2020. Since my daughter moved in (as my tenant) we found numerous problems.
1) had boiler services as they had no record of when serviced. The gas man said the wiring was totally dangerous, it looked like they installed it themselves. In the sales particulars and prepurchase discussions with the estate agent the vendor stated the boiler was o stalled on 2016
The property information form (which I have only just received states NO KNOWN regarding when the heating system was last serviced or installed.
2) due to the concern the gas man raised in addition to noticing a live wire just hanging from a board with load of electrics on it including a fuse box. We got an electrician to do a report.
He condemned the property electrically. Some one had added sockets and just wired to the nearest one with no usual electric wire direction (critical usually) one wall had sockets but no wiring in it (the wall had been moved) but again no mention onthe property information form. (Albeit we don’t ‘ow when this was done). The electric junction box had been wired in a very dodgy way, not by a competent person. The electrician says the box is only a few years old.
Again on the property information form, regarding the question about wiring they stated no.
3) A few days after my daughter moved in, she gotten flee bights all over her. Got pest control in and the whole house was completely invested. Fumigated twice but could. It do any cleaning for 10:days after each time, Yuck.
4) the bins were left full and overflowing, the carpets and blinds covered in tons of cat hairs. The grills on the top of the radiators filled to the top with cat hairs. Bathroom soap scum everywhere.
Do I have a case for. Misinterpretation, regarding the electrics and boiler? My electrician will be able to prove if the installation was after 2006.
Many thanks
Thank you for your comment, Penny.
A misrepresentation occurs when a false statement of fact is made about something which induces the other person into a contract. Not mentioning something would not ordinarily be enough for a claim. Likewise, an oral representation would also probably not be sufficient, as the standard conditions of sale which most property contracts adopt would operate to exclude verbal representations from being actionable.
However, from what you have described, there may be scope here for a claim. At a basic level, stating that it is not known when the boiler was installed, when the sellers installed it themselves could be a misrepresentation. Likewise to suggest that there had been no rewiring may also be actionable. However, you will need evidence and this might be difficult to obtain.
You really should have been supplied with the property information form before you exchanged contracts.
Pest issues, but more specifically leaving the property in a clean and tidy state is also something which the seller generally promises in the standard documentation
Hi I have a question about non disclosure. We purchased our property, exchanging contracts 12/2015. When we moved in 15/01/2016 we found a note pinned to a notice board, telling us about a sub basement room with a pump that removed water on a float switch basis. It is part of the old mill and not visible. This “room” was not mentioned in the sales literature- vendor used on online estate agent. Agent informed me they were unaware of it. It was not brought to our attention when inspecting the property. Access is via a small hatch in the basement. The surveyor was also unaware of it and there is no mention of it in the survey. Do we have any recourse due to non disclosure? Thanks
Thank you for your comment. We think it is unlikely that you have a claim for misrepresentation. There would normally need to be some statement made which actively mislead someone about the facts.
Also, a constituent part of any claim is “damage”. This is the financial loss that someone has suffered by reason of the conduct complained of. We think that it is unlikely that the presence of a small room would have any significant impact on the value of what you have purchased.
We may of course be wrong in this respect, but from what you have written, we do think you would struggle to show that you have suffered a loss.
Hi, thanks for your reply. Perhaps I wasn’t clear about the space below the basement. It is not a “small room”, it measures approximately 14×14 ft and about 15ft deep. We were recently flooded and much of the water rose up into the basement from this cavern below, causing a lot of damage to the walls and contents. The issue is one of water ingress and maintenance costs, none of which were apparent. Thanks
Thank you for the clarification Kieran.
The issue seems to be less to do with the presence of the room but more likely issues regarding the flooding. Presumably, no mention of historical flooding appeared on the property information form. It may be the case that the property has not flooded before but if it has, then there very well may be a case of misrepresentation. You will need to somehow find evidence of historical flooding, if this is the case.
As for your damages/losses, these are not necessarily the cost of remedial works. The starting point for the measure of damages is what a reasonable person would have paid for the property knowing about the situation, namely that the property had flooded historically. This would require input from a suitably qualified surveyor.
Do feel free to get in touch if you would like to consider matters further.
We purchased a property in May 2015 which had a septic tank which discharged into a water course, we were aware of the septic tank (but not where it discharged) when we purchased the property however we were not aware of the new regulations and legislations regarding the tank and how they must be replaced until 2017 when we applied to extend our property. We have subsequently had to outlay approximately £10,000 installing a new sewage treatment plant but feel like we should have been informed by our solicitors regarding the original tank. Especially seeing as it was law that the system should have been upgraded if sold from 2015… we are now wondering if we have any case against the original conveyancers for failings in how the handled our purchase?
Thank you for your comment, Sasha.
This is unlikely to be a case of misrepresentation unless, for example, something was mentioned by the seller or their solicitors which was not factually accurate.
However, there could be scope for a negligence claim depending on what you were advised at the time. It does not sound as though you were advised about the position by your solicitor and we are sure you would have remembered something like this. However, we would certainly recommend you review the correspondence that you received from them, just in case something was set out in writing, which would probably be enough to provide a defence for your solicitor. This information would often appear in what is called a “report on title”.
On the assumption that no advice was given, it was in January 2015 that the relevant new legislation was introduced. However, that legislation has undergone a number of changes over the years. If at the time there was an existing or impending requirement to upgrade your system, which there may have been, then you probably should have been advised of this and given the opportunity to negotiate the position with the seller and who was going to be responsible for this.
Clearly you would have insisted that the seller undertake the work. However, in professional negligence claims, the Court will look at what the hypothetical position would have been had the correct advice been given. There is no guarantee that the seller would have agreed to undertake the work or apply a discount to the purchase price (but there is a good possibility of this if they were going to face the same problem with an alternative buyer).
The loss you have suffered is therefore not necessarily the full cost of undertaking the work. What you have lost is an opportunity, in this case, you have lost the chance to negotiate. The Court will consider the likelihood of the seller having agreed to a discount representing the full cost of the works. If there is a possibility that the full cost might not have been agreed, then it will often apply a loss of an opportunity “discount” to the value of the claim. Put in more simple terms, if the Court considers that there was a 90% chance that the buyer would have agreed to a discount on the sale price or undertaken the works, then it would award 90% of the losses you have suffered. For example, if a property is in a highly desirable area, a purchaser may be more inclined to accept that they would have to undertake work at their own cost in order to secure the purchase and a seller more likely to see if they can find a buyer who is. This is the generally the same way the Court assesses losses for most professional negligence claims, such as claims against surveyors.
Do feel free to get in touch with us if you would like us to look into the position for you.
Hello – we purchased a property last year and got the keys in early November 2019, the property form that was filled out contained an awful lot of “not that we are aware of” rather than “yes” or “no” when it came to history sections including any water issues/leaking/damp etc.
On the day we got the keys, we did the usual walk around the inside of the property and discovered that there was water coming down the inside wall of the box room, this is still leaking as we are struggling to identify how the water is getting in however we have stripped some wall paper back and some of the liner on the ceiling and it is very evident that this has been an ongoing issue that they have put lining paper over and painted. Can we do anything about this?
Also, when cleaning the en-suite for the first time I realised water was coming through the ceiling into the kitchen, a plumber had to cut a hole in the ceiling and said it had been leaking before/had been cut out before as he could see the special tape they use to put a cut ceiling back in place.
Along with this, (over time) there was also a small leak in the spare bedroom, a leak by the en suite window, leaks everywhere up the stairs to the roof which have all become apparent over the 4 months we have been in the property and most recently, water coming through either side of the patio doors.
The whole house had been recently decorated with, it seems, lining paper then paint in most areas and it has led me to think that the sellers really knew about all of this. Do we have any options here?
Thanks so much
Lucy
Hello Lucy.
Thank you for your post. This sounds horrible and you must be so disappointed.
First and foremost, you should check to see if you are covered by your buildings insurance.
However, from what you have said, it sounds to us that you do in fact have quite a reasonable claim.
It sounds as though there has been a deliberate concealment of issues. This in itself would not necessarily give rise to a claim, as it is the buyer’s responsibility to check what they are buying by instructing a surveyor. However, the vast majority of surveyors will include in their terms and conditions caveats which state that they will not open up walls, look behind furniture, under carpets or remove wallpaper and the like. To an extent, this is understandable, a seller would not want to be left with a wall stripped of wallpaper if the transaction did not proceed. However, it is still for the buyer to insist upon whatever checks they want and make a decision to accept the risk or walk away if this request is refused.
The reason why you probably have a reasonable claim is because of case called William Sindall plc v Cambridgeshire County Council [1993] EWCA Civ 14.
In this case, the seller stated in the property information form “Not so far as the vendor is aware” in response to the enquiries made. The Court treated this as an implied representation that the seller had taken steps to investigate and answer. In short, the seller should not have answered the question at all if they did not know the answer to it. In fact, the standard TA6 form (this is the property information form) published by the Law Society and used in countless transactions warns the seller to specifically say so if they do not know the answer to a question.
Please feel free to get in touch and we would be happy to elaborate and provide some options for you.
We bought a property in April 2017 which had been built by the seller 4 years previously. The seller stated in the property survey (as part of the single survey in scotland) that no alterations had taken place to the property in the time that they had owned the property. We subsequently sold the property in June 2019 as during conveyancing of our sale the new buyers’ conveyancer picked up on ‘missing consents’ for a permanent staircase from the upstairs of the property to a converted attic space. Long story short but the work was ‘non-compliant’. After lots of back and forth the buyers agreed to a reduction in price and a title indemnity to proceed with the sale. As we had a new build we were about to lose out on we went for this option despite it leaving us £4k out of pocket from the agreed sale price. I also did this on the advice of my conveyancer who advised we would have a claim against the surveyor who carried out the original single survey for our purchase in 2017. Long story short, I have exhausted the complaints procedure with the surveyors and they are not accepting liability (stating that the guidance for the conveyancer was the same in the single survey at the time of our purchase as it was at the time of our sale) therefore, they pointed to professional negligence on the part of my conveyancer. I have now started a process through the formal complaints procedure for the conveyancer to try and recover my material loss of £4k but they in turn are pointing the finger at SELLER MISREPRESENTATION at the time of the original purchase in 2017! All I know is that I’m £4k out of pocket and no-one seems liable – what are my options to go after the seller? I also read that it might be time barred also? Cheers.
Hi Del. Thank you for your post.
We fully appreciate the frustration. You haven’t done anything wrong but have been stung with a bill of £4,000.
We would need to have a look at the correspondence to work out exactly what has happened, who said what and who is at fault.
Surveyors and solicitors are both professionals and the retainer with them and their terms and conditions will be the first thing to consider when deciding whether or not there is a professional negligence claim. Certainly not spotting a lack of a building regulation final certificate would potentially be negligent for a solicitor, but the obvious question which seems to have arisen is whether or not the solicitor had any reason to suspect that this was the case when you purchased. As for misrepresentation, this will turn on precisely what you were told in writing leading up to exchange and completion.
What we do note from your post is that you mention a single survey. Our understanding of this is that it is something prevalent in Scotland, rather than England and Wales. Scotland has its own legal system and we are only able to advise on the law of England and Wales. If the property isn’t based in England and Wales, it is unlikely we will be able to assist, you would need a lawyer that specialises in Scots law.
If we don’t hear from you, we wish you every success.
Bought an apartment in grade II listed mansion house with four leasehold apartments. Seller stated no issues with neighbours. I since found out that they had complained to the management company about him letting out his property to Air bnb. Lease does not allow subletting. I’ve been there seven weeks and have had malicious communications from the other leaseholders trying to demand I cannot have door mats outside my front door in the communal area and I can’t have net curtains in my windows as no becoming of a grade 11 listed building. I also have my own garden and they are demanding that I manicure it so that it doesn’t look bad when they look outside their windows!! Can I claim misrep when these people complained about the previous owner?
Thanks for your post, Amanda.
We are sorry to hear about this. It isn’t that uncommon that sellers might seek to suppress information about previous disputes with neighbours. Nobody wants to purchase a house where there is an ongoing dispute. Boundary disputes are a regular example of this.
A failure to mention historical disputes may very well amount to a misrepresentation. However, for any claim to be pursued, there has to be both a causal connection with the false statement of fact and the loss suffered. For example, if you were misled about the condition of the roof, it would not really be open to say that there was a misrepresentation in relation to, for example, the condition of the windows.
It would not be unusual for a freeholder to complain about the property being sub-let as an Air-bnb. This again is reasonably common. However, I am hesitant to suggest that the failure to disclose this particular issue would be actionable when the disputes which you are now subject to differ, unless what you are saying is that the other neighbours raised the same issues with the seller previously as they are raising with you now.
Whilst we could provide some advice on your rights and liabilities under the terms of the lease, we are not certain that there would be much more we would be able to assist you with.
Having said this, we are an approachable firm and you are more than welcome to contact us to discuss the problems and see if we can add some cost effective benefit to the situation for you.
We bought a barn conversion in 2018 which was advertised with a one bedroom self contained separate detached annex. Which was a conversion over the double garage. It now transpires that there was no planning permission obtained and we have now been served with a planning enforcement. Since the sales particulars advertised this as such, and neither solicitors acting for the seller and ourselves sort to ascertain check such planning. Do we ave a clear case for misreresentation but who is liable
Hi Christopher
Thank you for your post and I am sorry to read this.
This sounds less like a misrepresentation matter and more like a professional negligence issue. For a misrepresentation to occur, you would needed to have been actively mislead about the issue of planning permission. If the seller said nothing about planning permission, or a lack thereof, then it is unlikely that there is a misrepresentation.
Issues with respect to a lack of planning permission would normally be identified in searches undertaken by solicitors. Whilst solicitors will rely on the results of searches, they are not infallible. The question will be to what extent would this issue have been discoverable and what should have been advised about it. If there is a lack of planning permission, sometimes the issue can be resolved with indemnity insurance. However, this sounds like it is not an option if you have been served with an enforcement notice.
You would probably be better off giving us a call to discuss the issues in more detail. If there is some scope for a claim, we can give you an indication of the sort of cost involved and what would need to be proved. When calling us, please ask for Mark Taylor.
I bought a semi-detached property on 29-Jan-2014. Viewings, searches and exchange of contract was between Nov-Dec 2013. I had some concern about the rear boundary when I viewed the property, as there was no solid fence in place between the two rear gardens BUT there was a couple of wooden fence posts sticking out of overgrown plants. So I asked my solicitor to make sure she pays extra attention to the boundary line and checks if there is any dispute with neighbours. During the purchase process told my solicitor that if there is a dispute with neighbour for anything, especially land and boundary, then I would walk away and look for another property. I arranged to visit the property in the presence of the estate agent to ask the seller about the boundary lines on either side of the property. The seller confirmed to me, in presence of the agent, that there were no dispute of any kind with the neighbour. She also showed me the boundary lines in either side of the property and pointed to the fence posts as the boundary line.
I did not move in to the property after completing the purchase as it was in desperate need of refurbishment. I also wanted to add a rear extension to improve dining-lounge size and lighting. On completion day I got the keys from the agent; went to the property to check that the property was empty. The next day I gave the keys to my project manager to start the refurbishment and rear extension project. The project started on 09-Feb-2014. Sometimes in Mar-2014 my builders told me that there was some new paintwork, a new fence post, and some chicken wire connecting the new fence post to an old one at the back of my property, where I was planning to build the extension. They had taken a picture of it and sent me to check if they could remove the wires and fence post as they needed to demolish the wall for the extension work. I confirmed that they could remove it as I had no knowledge of such work. I later visited the property to see it for myself. It looked very odd. I didn’t really understand why and who has installed the fence post and wires, and painted the wall a different color than the rest of the house. I asked my project manager and he didn’t have a clue either. The neighbouring property had an old extension. So the new paintwork was on the flank wall of the neighbouring extension AND a part of my rear wall (a stripe about 30 inches but only in the ground floor level!). The extension was built inside my property and up to the paintwork as we had planned to leave a gap with the neighbouring extension to access flank walls for repairs if needed in future.
I moved to the house in Jun-2014 when the work had completed. Then my neighbour started to complain that I had built my extension on his land and took me to court. An expert surveyor report for the court concluded that although I had built extension in my own land, there was possibility that the foundation might have been up to the boundary line. So the expert concluded that I had trespassed into the neighbouring land and my neighbour was awarded damages and full cost. It cost nearly £75,000 in damages and fees.
I learned from my neighbour’s witness statement (issued in Apr-2017) for his case against me that he had had been disputing the boundary line at the rear of the property for years and had managed to make the seller to create a boundary line where he wanted it to be, just before completion of sale. So I learned in Apr-2017 the story behind the paintwork, the fence post and chicken that my builders had discovered. According to my neighbour’s statement at the Trial, this had happened just few days before I completed the purchase in Jan-2014. We had exchanged mid-Dec 2013.
I raised the issue with the property ombudsman as my neighbour had been in touch with the estate agent regarding his boundary dispute with the seller. He has stated in his witness statement that after raising the issue via the estate agent the seller created the new boundary line. The estate agent denied any knowledge and involvement despite my neighbour’s witness statement (which was signed by him and verified by his solicitor and used in court against me). So the property ombudsman closed the case saying the estate agent did not have knowledge!!!
I talked to a solicitor about the issue as I had came across couple of high profile court cases with sellers not providing truthful information in property information packs (PIP). After spending some money to trace the seller (they refused to give any forwarding address when they sold me the house), my solicitor managed to start a letter of claim but the seller’s solicitor claimed that there is a clause in the purchase agreement that the buyer is not entitled to raise any misrepresentation claims!!! They referred to the clause and I had to trace all the conveyancing work done by my solicitor at the time to find out what the seller solicitor was referring to. It turned out that there was no such clause in any version of the paperwork! The seller referred to a comment on the PIP in section related to boundary lines, which was saying a fence post on *RIGHT* hand side of the property was moved 6 years ago (that would have been sometime in 2006-2007). Their solicitor claimed that comment about the fence post move should have put the buyer on notice with regard to boundary line! After some checks it turned out that there was no fence movement on RIGHT hand side boundary but there was a fence post on the LEFT hand side which my neighbour claimed at the Trial that the fence post was moved against his will! The PIP clearly defined how RIGHT and LEFT should be defined when filling out the PIP; the form clearly states ‘Looking at the property from the road in front of the property…”. I believe the seller deliberately lied to me when I arranged a viewing to ask about boundary line and if there was any dispute. I also believe they provided false information in the PIP to put me in a difficult situation. After almost 1.5 years of back and forth letters my solicitor now agrees with me that I might have a fraudulent misrepresentation but he is not an expert in property law and PIPs. So I want to know what your verdict is and if I have a case, whether you can point me to an exert to issue a letter of claim. I don’t want to ruin anybody’s life the way my neighbour ruined mine but I want the seller to know the consequences of his unlawful actions. I am prepared to settle out of court via ADR but they don’t seem to even accept what they have done to me.
sorry for long description. I thought i give as much information as possible, so that you can advise better for the next step.
Hi MM
Thank you for your post.
Obviously the question about disputes with neighbours is asked in property information forms to avoid this sort of thing from happening and we are sorry that it has happened to you.
We are sorry to say that we think it is unlikely that you would be able to pursue a misrepresentation claim. The reason for this is that it seems to be more than six years ago that the misrepresentation took place. The Limitation Act 1980 would probably operate to prevent a claim being pursued. Fraud is the exception to this but it is a very high burden of proof to show.
Whilst we would be happy to go through the paperwork and give you an idea of the possible claims you could pursue, it sounds as though this may be quite a time consuming job after six years of litigation and argument. Because of the time that has gone by and the fact that you may be out of time to bring a claim, you might not want to incur the legal charges in further investigating. However, if you would like us to give you an idea of the sort of cost involved and discuss any preliminary points, please do feel free to get in touch.
My daughter & son in law bought a detached house with a 2 storey side extension, joining it to a detached garage 4 years ago. I think extension was completed approx 12 – 18 yrs ago. Due to a misunderstanding no survey was done. I did not see the property till after purchase & noticed that I could physically feel the rise under my feet where the extension met the original, hairline cracks or protruding plaster (as though wall ties or render had been added then covered) at certain places where joints met extension. A vertical crack (settlement possibly?) In corner of extension. I think the extension is built over the drains. Although I am no expert (although having read so much info since I do feel I am much better informed now) i wished I had viewed before purchase as I would have asked a lot more questions & insisted they had a survey. I didn’t want to alarm them as naive 1st time buyers (but i bet they didn’t ask probing questions or request information). Apart from me no one else seemed to think any of these things were important, plus some relative who said he was a builder said it all looked ok so I put it to the back of my mind. A neighbour said the house had had a thorough redecoration by ‘experts’? Before selling & that they thought the extension had been done by the sellers brother who she later fell out with. I just thought that perhaps it was a DIY extension and not perfect but all would be ok. After all everything had to be signed off, it wasn’t going to fall down was it?! Unfortunately they are now divorcing & she is very depressed & struggling for money. She wanted to keep the house& is having to buy him out based on house having increased in value. We have been helping her to renovate & redecorate. It may be my imagination but I think the corner crack mentioned before may have widened to approx 4mm & looks as though it follows as a hairline crack to ground level. I’m not sure if it has been filled or not by previous owner. My husband insists all of this is fine & I am hugely over reacting. I admit I am panicked but dont want to cause alarm or stress & I am imagining worst case scenario of subsidence, jerry builder, being unable to sell or afford mortgage, house being worthless, no buildings insurance & an expensive & hopeless legal case causing extreme depression & hardship. I feel I cannot get anyone round to investigate or diagnose so am surrupticiously trying to get as much advice as possible myself. The seller of house left no forwarding address & I don’t know her name. How can I trace her, how could we prove she covered up issues, would a legal case be worth it, how can I check all building plans/regs were correct, how can I see plans with drains etc, find out who builder was & if any guarantee, how to get a copy of ta6 & ta10 forms, check solicitor advised fully? If I get surveys would insurance have to be informed? If she sold what on Earth would she put on TA6, she is distracted & oblivious to a lot of this? Could she rent the house out or have a lodger during all this? Could she get any financial help from her husband as currently he is still on the mortgage? I am confused what difference is between chartered/building/structural surveyors or engineers/RICS etc. There also seems to be a lot of home owners complaining these people miss things & caveiats mean they are not accountable. Where do I start?
Thank you for your post.
Because of the amount of time that has gone by, the prospect of brining any sort of claim seems unlikely. The Limitation Act 1980 imposes deadlines on potential claims to ensure that people are not at risk of a claim forever. The basic limitation period is 6 years for claim based on a contract, like misrepresentation. For cases of fraud, the limitation period is significantly extended but proving fraud is very difficult. After such a long period of time, it is unlikely that you will be able to obtain evidence about what happened and the seller’s state of mind, even if they can be traced.
The other aspects of what you mention, namely the breakdown of the relationship and sale of the property, relate to family law. We have a Family Law Department who may be able to assist your daughter if you would like to get in touch.
Hi, we are desperate for some advice and don’t know what to do, any advice would be greatly appreciated please
We viewed a house in September 2018, put in an offer for £10,000 over as we loved the property so much. We only put our house on the market for this one.
The local search report flagged moderate to high risk of subsidence so we had a mortgage valuation survey done in the October which we paid £550 for, we sent our mortgage advisor the local search and asked his advice, he said to see what that said and when it came back it stated no signs of structural movement and it said didn’t warrant further looking at so we relied on that and did not instruct a further survey.
He also said the house was mortgageable and was worth £305,000
The mortgage company lent us £125,000 on this basis for the property which was purchased for £305,000
The house is a 4 bed semi detached, with a rear extension, conservatory, side extension of bath room built in 2008 and a side storey extension built in 2014 and a porch.
We finally moved into the property in March 2019 and In September 2019 we noticed cracks in the ceiling in the right hand side extension, outside the house and on further investigation there were more cracks showing inside that have got worse over the last 4 months
We contacted the builder who did the 2014 extension and building control, who came out to see us he wanted to stitch the bricks and see what happens. After that we found that the planning permission was for a 2 storey extension including the garage extension (we also found that the foundations were recommended to be to the chapter 4 building near trees and 2.4 mtrs minimum depth), the building control certificate was only for the bedroom and ensuite not the garage so that has no certificate
We obtained the building control logs and it showed there was an original garage raft from 1996 a rebuild due to subsided drain, and that the builder could notget the raft out so questioned if it would take the increased load – he was advised to get a structural report (he told us this took 6 weeks – we have no details of who), however building control signed off the foundations within a week.
We contacted our house insurance, legal and general who had surveys and bore holes done and confirmed that it was bad workmanship and the foundations should have been 2.4mtrs deep and were 500/800 and 500mm on the 3 sets of extension foundations on the right hand side of the house and there’s hawthorn roots from the trees In the quarry nature reserve next to us that go down 2mtrs (the insurance have declined to deal with it as they are saying bad workmanship, we have years of continuous cover)
On further investigation we discovered that in the conveyancing documents the people we brought off said there was a garage and extension in their legal documents TA6, then only supplied the building control certificate for the bedroom and ensuite, then when asked about the garage extension, they said it was there when they moved in in 2006. On google earth from 2009 and 2012 and the online estate agent brochure from when they brought it, it clearly shows it is not the same garage.
Building control logs confirm this and so do the neighbours and photographic evidence. The vendor also stated they were unaware of any planning breaches.
There are cracks everywhere now even in the main house, you can clearly see where there has been previous filler from subsidence cracks around the windows, along the ceiling etc and outside, the extension is pulling from the main house. The insurance company surveyor said if the problem isn’t fixed in 6 months this is what happens and said he could clearly see the filler etc was pre purchase..
Also we found when looking into this further, that in the estate agents brochure from before we viewed the house, there is a subsidence crack on the right hand side garage pillar. We have a picture taken before we completed showing fresh pointing up which our mortgage surveyor missed and we only noticed this when we discovered the cracks last September and stated investigating.
Also the vendor had things stacked down the side of the house when we viewed and in the estate agents photos – we now know this covers previous bore holes and a lintel and the old garage raft. The estate agents had a 4K video done of the house to sell it and you can see and they commented, it was like a show house when we brought it it was beautiful
We have found wood and metal paint in the shed which is for the ensuite and you can clearly see where they have filled cracks the filler is falling off the walls and the wallpaper has come away.There is foam filler in a 25mm dip in the front room in the main house and only the previous owners could have done this as they had the front room extended
The rear extension is also affected and also the conservatory had water run down the walls in September in heavy rain, the neighbours have advised us that the foundations there are only 500mm and they remember our sellers having this problem also – this currently has a temporary drain on it
The seller also stated the porch didn’t need planning and was under 3mtrs – its is 3.2mtrs
Her brother lives down the road and he saw me the other month and asked if we had had building work done or any structural work to the house.
We were lead to believe that the new house they were buying that is next to their daughter in Cheadle was in their names, land registry says the house is in her daughters name and we know they have had 2 large extensions built on both houses and both houses are in her daughters name
Surely this is fraud, we had legal cover through coplus and they have just declined the claim due to our sellers not having chargable assets but we are pretty sure that they have been spending and getting rid of our money and 100% knew about the problems with the house and lied to us to buy it
Please do you know how can this be right?? how can someone take someones money fraudulently and get rid of it like this? this is everything we have worked for we are absolutely devastated and do not know here to turn next
Hi Amanda
Thank you for your post. We can’t give any specific advice on this blog. We can give some general guidance but it is not a substitute for instructing a solicitor to look into the position in detail.
We are sorry to hear about this. It must be an extremely stressful situation. You have identified a few points which would need further investigation. Firstly, the scope of the survey and whether or not the surveyor complied with their contractual and common law duty of care is worthwhile considering. Surveyors will have insurance in place in the event that they breach their statutory or common law duty of care to a client. However, it does seem that the survey was undertaken for the benefit of the lender and probably contains a statement to the effect that it should not be relied on by anyone else, which might cause problems. Normally a purchaser would be well advised to undertake a full structural survey for themselves, particularly if the searches reveal a risk of subsidence.
As for a misrepresentation claim, from what you have described it does seem that there could be a deliberate concealment of facts relating to historical movement in the property, specifically what seems to be a newly constructed garage, due to subsidence, possibly caused by the hawthorn roots but possibly by structural defects or a combination of both. The basic position is that it is “buyer beware”. If questions were not specifically asked of the seller, then no responses would have been given which would constitute misrepresentation. The suggestion that the garage was there, which is why there was not a building control certificate, may be your best prospect of bringing a claim.
It would not be unusual for your legal expenses insurer to decline or withdraw cover in respect of this claim. Whilst this must be frustrating, there would normally be a clause in the insurance policy that says when there is less than a 50% prospect of recovering damages, for example, if the other side does not have sufficient assets to pay, they are entitled to withdraw cover. Whilst you believe that the properties are in effect owned by your sellers but in someone else’s name is not conclusive of the point. The Court always approaches matters objectively and there could be a legitimate reason for this.
If the sellers have no assets in their name because they have transferred them to someone else, then there may be a way to challenge these transfers. However, this would be risky and costly and would probably involve pursuing a claim, obtaining a judgment which is greater than £5,000 and then petitioning for their bankruptcy. Depending on the time that these transfers took place and the nature of them, they may be capable of being challenged by a trustee in bankruptcy. However, such a challenge would be for the benefit of all the creditors. If a bankrupt has a lot of creditors, then their assets are pro-rated according to the value of the debt, with secured creditors being paid first and unsecured creditors last, if there is anything left.
We may be able to assist you but it would be remiss of us to suggest that it would be a straightforward, quick or low risk claim to pursue. However, please do feel free to contact us.
Hi thank you for your reply, i have only found out you replied this morning I didn’t think the post had posted back then.. can I ask please so if it’s established and is clear fraud (we have since scrutinised the Conveyancing file and there are numerous fraudulent and reckless things in it), if their daughter brought the house they are living in cash, just before our sale, we’ve checked and it’s still in her name but they have spent the proceeds from our sale on extending and renovating that house and are living in it… on judgement can that house become a beneficial asset and become the asset under proceeds of crime and have a charge put on it ? the insurers are ignoring the fact they have had £305,000 cash and have not brought a house, they will not say it’s over 51% chance of recovering the money back but surely it is and the law will not allow this ?
Thank you for your comment Amanda. This isn’t really the forum for us to provide detailed legal advice. We can only really provide general pointers, as every case is different, and these should not be a substitute for specific legal advice.
It is not illegal for someone to purchase property for someone else, although we do not specialise in criminal law. It is also not illegal to spend money on someone else’s property, although this may sometimes entitle the person spending the money to acquire an interest in the property which is of value. As for an “established fraud”, there is legal definition of this. The concept of fraud relates primarily to the intention of the parties. Whether or not the act in question was fraudulent depends on what the intention was in taking those steps and this can be hard to prove. It sounds as though what could have happened, but without exploring the position in considerable more detail it is impossible to say, is a transaction to defraud creditors. This is when someone deliberately takes steps to put their assets out of the reach of a creditor. The ability to challenge such a transaction would generally accrue to a trustee in bankruptcy, but for this, someone would need to be adjudged bankrupt. In your matter, this would mean obtaining a judgment which is over £5,000 and then petitioning for their bankruptcy.
It is generally a term of an insurance policy that there must be both a reasonable prospect of success and a reasonable prospect of recovery. Insurers will not cover events which do not provide this. We cannot really provide any input on the terms of your insurance policy without considering this in detail.
We have just moved into a new home. The house was a tip when we arrived. It took 4 of us a day to just empty the shed of rubbish. We’ve done about 8 trips to the tip so far. I used up 3 days annual leave just to clear the place. It was very upsetting. On the fixtures form the seller stated that various items were included/existed. She has taken everything, the light fittings, the tv aerial, the burglar alarm (although that might not even existed but we were excited to see the answer was yes on the form). We asked our solicitor to include a list of these items in the contract. Do we have a claim for breach of contract or misrepresentation or both?!
Thank you for your query and we are sorry to hear about this. Moving into a new home only to be greeted by a property which is left in a terrible state would be upsetting.
If items are included in a sale but not left, then there may very well be a claim for breach of contract. Saying that items exist but not including them in the sale would probably not amount to a misrepresentation or breach of contract unless they could be considered fixtures and integral to the building itself.
As for the state that the property was left in, question 14 of the Property Information Form asks the seller to confirm whether or not they would remove rubbish from the property and leave it a clean and tidy condition. If they have not done this then there may be a claim for misrepresentation.
The value of your claim sounds as though it could be below £10,000. This broadly means that even if a claim was issued, you would not be able to recover your legal costs. As we undertake a large number of transactions for our clients, we do assist them when this sort of thing occurs and we can normally agree a fixed fee for advising and assisting with any initial letter before action.
Do feel free to get in touch with us if you would like us to assist you.
I recently bought an auction property last month. The buyers pack says house is being sold vacant. However i asked asked my solicitor to confirm house is vacant before closing, she said it was confirmed that house is vacant. After conmpletion, i went to get keys from agent. When i got to the house only to find the keys cant open front door. Then proceeded to the back door found the lock broken as i entered the kitchen was greeted with a bed . Then found out there are several others living in the house. Met one guy who said he was renting from a guy. I ask to have a look at his lease, he has none. Agency i purchase from said they had no idea. Seller did not disclose that info. What should i do at this point. I am so disappointed and stressed out.
You should get in touch with your solicitor immediately to provide you with advice regarding evicting trespassers. It is likely that the police should also be contacted to see what, if anything, they are able to do. In some circumstances “squatting”, this is taking up occupation of a residential property without permission, is a criminal offence.
We cannot be sure of the position, namely whether or not the occupants are there pursuant to an existing or expired agreement with the seller of the property or, for example, if they broke into the property to take up occupation. This is a point which must be established as soon as possible so a decision can be made regarding what needs to happen and the options available. Whether or not an agreement ever was or is in place (such an agreement does not have to be in writing) will affect the rights you have and procedures you need to follow, which could range from changing the locks whilst the trespasser is out or starting court proceedings. All action carries with it risk and we cannot advise you on the options available without investigating the position in full.
We would never recommend to a client attempting to remove squatters themselves. Aside from the obvious risk to personal safety, physically removing anyone from residential property can be a criminal offence. Likewise, if it is not clear whether or not the previous owner’s permission was ever given, taking self-help measures like changing the locks could lead to claims of unlawful eviction. In all matters such as these, the safest option to safeguard against potential claims which can be made against the property owner is to start the appropriate court proceedings.
If the occupiers are there pursuant to an agreement with the seller, then the auction pack might very well contain a false statement of fact, leading to a misrepresentation claim against the seller. However, auctions are very risky for any purchasers and a careful consideration of the pack and the auction terms is required. A “normal” possession claim would be the means by which to evict an occupier who is there pursuant to the existing or expired permission of a property owner. This is normally something this firm can offer on a fixed fee basis.
If the occupiers are not there with the permission of the previous owner, then they are likely to be trespassers. As mentioned, there are certain ways in which trespassers can be dealt with but the safest option is to make a possession claim against trespassers or, subject to the time which has passed since you became aware of the issue, apply to the Court for what is called an Interim Possession Order.
Do feel free to get in touch with us if you would like assistance.
We bought our first house this year. In the TA6 form, the seller ticked”to follow” for the guarantees for “windows, roof lights, roof windows or glazed doors”and for “electrical work”. He never sent these guarantees to us, and has failed to respond to numerous emails from us and our solicitor. After moving in we have had to get the RCD changed and the electrician said the house would need a full rewire. Also the windows have been installed incorrectly and lack insulation around them.
In addition, while the seller didn’t tick the roof guarantee box in the TA6 form he did send us a written email prior to completion saying that he would forward the guarantee for the flat roof on the extension behind the house. Now we have started noticing damp patches coming through the ceiling.
Do you think we have recourse for any of these issues? Thank you
Hello Dave, your message has been passed on to our litigation partner Mark Taylor and he will reply when he has a gap in his schedule.
Let’s hope he can help you find a way forward with your property issue.
We are sorry to hear about this. It must have come as a disappointment to move into your first home and discover these issues.
There could be a claim for misrepresentation here but it might be vitiated to a degree depending on what was done to chase up these guarantees before exchange and completion and what the guarantees in fact cover.
Certainly there is scope here to say that you relied on these representations that they would be supplied and it is arguably implicit that the guarantees existed. If no guarantees in fact exist, then the representations were obviously false. However, if you proceeded to exchange and complete without having seen the guarantees, this may lend itself to the counter argument that you did not rely on them being adequate to cover the remedial works required, that they remained valid (as most guarantees will expire eventually) or even existing at all.
Whether or not the guarantees exist and what they cover is going to be important for any claim. If they do exist, then there is probably little scope for any sort of claim if they are subsequently provided, even if the guarantees are out of date or do not cover the remedial works required. Guarantees do not state what the condition of the property is in, this is what a surveyor’s report is generally for. Further, the standard conditions of sale that normally apply in residential conveyancing expressly state that it is for the buyer to satisfy themselves as to the condition of the property they are purchasing.
If the guarantees do not exist, then there may be better scope for a claim. Why would someone suggest that guarantees existed when they did not, other than to lure a person into a sense of security before entering into a contract. In theory, there could be a claim based on what a “normal” guarantee would cover and that, so far as any of the remedial works required now would have been covered by such a “normal” guarantee, this is a loss that you have suffered. It is possible that you would need to obtain some evidence of what a guarantee would normally cover, and this might be by way of input from a suitably qualified expert.
You might want to also consider asking your solicitor why they did not follow up on this. You might also want to look at any surveyor’s report undertaken, as this might have failed to disclose issues or defects which have now become apparent.
We would be happy to look into the position for you in a bit more detail. Please feel free to get in touch.
Dear all,
I would really appreciate if you could give me an advice.
We moved 2 months ago in new maisonette. When we bought it, we asked seller about noise from upstairs, like steps or voice. Seller said that it’s quiet property. It was very important for me, because we used to live before in flat with poor insulation.
When we moved we recognized, that there is no insulation at all! I can hear everything, even my neighbors conversation. It’s ok in day time, but their steps at night waking me up. And my neighbor can speak very loud at night, and I couldn’t sleep. Even my baby is waking up. This neighbor upstairs is sellers cousin. Seller of course didn’t mention it, and I think he asked neighbor be quiet when someone came to see the flat.
Can I do something with that?
Thank you for your post.
In terms of what can be done, asking the neighbours upstairs to be more considerate may be a starting point. Whilst a solicitor could potentially write to them, good neighbourly relations may be prejudiced if a solicitor is instructed right away. A dispute with a neighbour is something you would have to declare when it comes to selling your property. This is more of a practical than legal consideration. You should also consider the terms of your lease, as there may be a mechanism within the lease to deal with this situation.
As for a claim against the seller, this will depend very much on what correspondence regarding the point took place leading up to exchange and completion. Short of asking for details of any disputes with a neighbour or details of any complaints the seller has made against or received from the landlord or another other neighbour (and it may be the case that there was no dispute or complaint), the Property Information Form (TA6) and Leasehold Information Form (TA7) which are normally used in transactions do not specifically ask any questions about noise. Even then, what does or does not constitute noise nuisance is to an extent a matter of opinion.
A misrepresentation claim can generally only exist if there is a false statement of fact. Therefore we would be hesitant to suggest that there is potential recourse for a claim against the seller.
I had my offer accepted over a week ago, and I have instructed my solicitor to complete the sale. I have taken out a re-mortgage loan to pay for this, which has now been released to me. We brought the property based on the fact it had lapsed planning permission to build an additional bungalow in the garden; we paid well over the asking price to ensure our offer was accepted as the estate agent was informing us that we would need to pay higher, as they have received numerous high offers.
I have found out today; over a week into the sale, that the lapsed plans never even existed, this surely would mean that the property is worth much less than the offer was accepted for.
It was advertised on the particulars, the board outside the house as well as on right move that it was a property with lapsed planning. It stated on all of these that there was great potential to build a bungalow on the land.
Is there anything I can do as I have now taken out a re-mortgage that is now sitting in my bank and will be having to pay monthly for this. As well as having to pay the solicitor for their time spent.
Thank you for your query.
It sounds as though you may have been misled but have not entered into a contract to purchase the property. From what you describe, your solicitor has undertaken some preliminary enquiries in respect of the property and discovered that it did not have the planning permission you were led to believe.
If you have not exchanged contracts, then you will not have been “induced” into that contract, as no contract to purchase the property exists. A misrepresentation claim cannot exist unless a contract is entered into based on something that the other party says which is not true.
If contracts have not been exchanged, we would be very hesitant to suggest that there is any sort of claim. Further, if you do exchange contracts, you would be very unlikely to have a later claim for misrepresentation, as you will not have relied on what was said about the planning permission when entering into the contract, as you know the truth of the matter. Further, if you have not exchanged contracts, then you have the option to make a decision about whether or not you want to proceed or re-negotiate the purchase price.
If you have exchanged contracts but have not completed, then there may be some scope here for you to rescind the contract, depending on what was said leading up to exchange. You should certainly discuss your options with your solicitor.
A final point to note is that in order to claim any loss, that loss must be “reasonably foreseeable”. This means that at the time the contract was entered into, the seller knew or ought to have known that the property was being funded by way of a remortgage.
We are sorry to say that it is unlikely that there is a claim.
I bought a house two months ago. During the viewing process of a property, the underfloor heating system in one of the rooms sprung a leak. I was advised by the estate agent that the seller will have it remedied before the house was sold. When the sale of the property was going through my solicitor requested a warranty for the works and we were supplied with a guarantee for the work undertaken by an Underfloor heating company.
Although there was a ‘warranty’, It transpires the leak wasn’t fixed, but the underfloor heating system was removed, the floor re-screeded and new floor tiles put down. Sure enough, the company did work to the underfloor heating, but not corrective work. I now have a room with no heating. There isn’t even an option to install a radiator in that room as the rest of the ground floor is underfloor heating. The only way to remedy it is to dig up the floor and re-instate new piping.
In the Law and property form, the seller claimed that a floor had to be replaced due to leaking an underfloor heating system. He stated this formed part of an insurance claim and that the claim was successful and remedial works completed successfully.
I’ve emailed the seller and his solicitor and I’m being advised from his solicitor that there is no response from the seller. Do I have a claim?
Thank you for your query. Before we can respond in any detail, it would be best to speak first. After this, we would most likely need to have a better consideration of your conveyancing file to see what was put in writing during the transaction itself and leading up to exchange of contracts.
If you have purchased something which is not what you contracted for, then there is a potential claim for breach of contract. However, this can be vitiated by the terms of the contract itself, which normally incorporate what are called “the standard conditions of sale” and which say that a buyer purchases a property in the condition it is in as at the date of the contract (i.e. exchange).
As for misrepresentation or potentially a negligent misstatement, these are also possibilities. A misrepresentation can occur even if the “truth” is told (i.e. that repairs were undertaken) but it is misleading because of what was left unsaid (i.e. that the underfloor heating was no longer working). As for a negligent misstatement, a seller does not normally have a duty of care to a buyer. However, in some cases, a duty of care can be imposed, particularly if there was an assumption of responsibility on the part of the person making the statement. This is unlikely to be the strongest basis upon which to build a claim but it is a point which we can explore in more detail, as it would be very fact specific.
Please do get in touch with us at https://cunningtons.co.uk/contact/ and we can give you an idea of what steps are likely to be required and the sort of cost involved.
My partner and I purchased a house 7 months ago. We have had major issues with the next door neighbours and their dogs who jump and bark at us at the fence. Left out all day etc. We tried talking to them about it several times but it devolved into nastiness from their end. I have health issues and this stress lead me to be hospitalised. Apparently they were friends with the people who owned the house. I also found out that the same neighbours (with the dogs) had been having ongoing dispute issues with parking with our other neighbours. The people who sold us this house would have known about this too. They also said the boiler had been serviced and it broke in two weeks and had to be replaced.
If we had known that these people were obnoxious and had historically annoyed other neighbours we would have never bought the house. We are looking at selling the house, have put in a new boiler, driveway and brand new bathroom. It has raised the base value. However due the issues we are concerned that we won’t get the money back. The estate agents are confident it will sell and it has increased in value.
Can we go back to the sellers for seller misinterpretation if we can’t sell the property?
Recently the neighbours have calmed down and started controlling their dogs. I’m hoping this will not be an issue when we sell.
Thank you for contacting us. Whilst we can’t give legal advice on this forum, looking at the situation based solely on your comments, it may be that your seller at the time had no particular issue with the neighbours dogs or with parking, and did not feel it warranted mentioning on any legal documentation. If this is the case it would also be difficult to show any intention to misrepresent the situation to you, and as yet you have not suffered any financial loss.
However, if you have difficulty selling or do not achieve the desired (realistic) price then you may potentially have a claim but you’d need to consider carefully the cost of pursuing that against any likelihood of success.
Hi. We purchased a property but found that the kitchen had a bad leak and the floor is rotten. The seller stated a repair was done through insurance but guarantee had expired. We now discover that the repair may have been a DIY job by the seller and no professional repair was done. I have made a small claim through MCOL for the leak repair, vermin, rubbish and unsanitary state house was in but if mediation doesn’t succeed I will apply for a non party disclosure to their insurance company. Plus documents they have sent to the court show leak claim was June 2012 and not as stated on PIF as Sept 2013. Would we potentially have a misrepresentation claim? Many thanks
Thank you for your enquiry.
The first thing to understand is that it would be for you as a Claimant to prove that what was said was a misrepresentation. Expert evidence to prove that the work was not undertaken professionally would probably be important, if this is the thrust of your claim and the basis of the misrepresentation. What is important to show is that there is a link between what you were told and what you relied on when entering into the contract.
You also mention an application for disclosure against the seller’s insurance company. Whilst we obviously cannot advise anyone on a forum such as this, you may want to consider whether or not this is the right application to make. Normally, the third party would be entitled to their costs of dealing with the application. Before you expose yourself to this risk, some thought should be given to asking the seller what insurance documentation they have. Perhaps an application for specific disclosure would be more appropriate.
If you do intend on making an application for third party disclosure, it is very much worthwhile being very specific about the documentation you want. There are cases where the Court has awarded very high costs on the basis that the documentation sought was very wide. Constantin Medien AG v Ecclestone [2013] EWHC 2519 (Ch) provides a good overview of the criteria that the Court takes into consideration: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2013/2674.html
You do not mention whether or not you have your own buildings insurance. It may be worth checking to see if you have legal expenses cover under this, as well as cover for the repairs.
Mediation is certainly sensible and, if the claim is in the Small Claims Case Management Track (colloquially called the “Small Claims Court”) you might find that making a small financial concession at mediation is a cost-effective outcome.
Thank you for your enquiry.
In short, there may be a potential claim for misrepresentation, if you have been misled by the contents of the property information form completed by the seller. We are unable to confirm this without looking at the conveyancing file itself and considering the position in detail but from what you have written, it seems that a claim may exist. The searches would be unlikely to identify this issue and the red boundary lines appearing on any Land Registry Plan relating to the property are more than likely general boundaries and would not show the exact location of the boundary. The only other thing which would normally identify the location of a boundary line is a surveyor’s report.
There could be scope here to claim that you have paid more for the property than it is worth, on the basis that you paid a purchase price which included the piece of land which is not part of the property but you were led to believe it did. You would need some valuation evidence to determine what this loss would be.
If you would like to consider the position in more detail, please do feel free to get in touch.
Hi,
We are in the process of exchanging on a property. Throughout the process the seller and agent has maintained that the loft is demised. Shortly before exchanging contracts I pressed on the subject directly with the freeholder, who advised the loft isn’t demised.
The seller had cut and paste an excerpt from an email from the freeholder implying the loft was demised, omitting the information that it was to be used for storage only. I have completed on my current property and have to move out at the end of the month. I now believe that the property price is below what was agreed. The estate agents have not covered themselves in glory as the advert does not state the loft is not demised, just that consents are required.
What action can I take?
We bought a small holding with a holiday let, prior to sale we were not allowed in the holiday let as it was rented out but the surveyor did go in. Anyway after completion we noticed it stank, we opened windows but realised the next day something was wrong. After looking we found mouse poison everywhere in cupboards and called in pest experts who confirmed there was evidence of mice in the loft. Fast forward two months and the entire loft insulatoon has been removed with 15 dead bodies and live ones caught. Also underneath the let are garages and they were in the insulation there, the kitchen was removed as heavily contamined with faeces etc. On the buyers form when asked if the council has ever been contacted the buyer put no, we found out that his prior tenant in 2018 had the council out twice when he complained mice were in the flat, they just laid bait traps. The tenant has offered to stand in court without us even asking. So the buyer knew about this problem and lied on the forms.
So far this has cost us thousands and the problem is ongoing , we bought this place to get revenue from the let. I was told I should get a surveyor to provide a valuation with this factor known before sending a letter before action so you have a professional view. There is also the issue of how do we let this place out in the future as it’s a converted stable loft area and impossible due to design to fully seal. Bu now we should have been renting it out for two months let alone loss of future revenue. I would rather have the contract rescinded as also there is the problem when we come to sell it ?
Hello. What a disappointment and inconvenience you have suffered and we are sorry to hear about what has happened.
Firstly, it’s important to understand that rescission is not guaranteed and if completion has taken place, it is considerably more likely that a Court would only award damages. This is primarily because of the impracticalities involved in reversing a contract for the purchase/sale of land when damages would normally be an adequate remedy to compensate you for any loss.
Case law establishes that the property information form is designed for a layperson to understand and complete. This broadly means that the Court will consider what a reasonable seller would have understood by the questions in the form and consider the answers given in this context. We assume you mean that the seller, in answer to question 3.1 of the property information form, said “no”, no notices or correspondence had been sent to the council, when in fact the seller was aware that correspondence had been sent to the Council (presumably because the tenant raised this with the seller). It may be the case that the Council has issued notices which prove this.
The other question to check in the property information for is the answer to question 14.4(a), which asks the seller whether or not the property will be left in a clean and tidy condition. Obviously this is a reasonably subjective question, but there may very well be scope to say that leaving a property in a condition where it remains subject to an ongoing infestation of mice is not clean and tidy.
As for the physical state of the property itself, which seems to make letting it difficult moving forward, this is unlikely to be anything that you would be able to obtain damages for. The standard conditions of sale, which are likely to have applied to your purchase, broadly say that a buyer accepts the property in the physical state it is in. There may be some scope to make a claim against your surveyor, but this would turn heavily on the scope of their instructions and what they were asked to do or advise on. We would be surprised if your surveyor agreed to check for rodent infestation which did not affect the structure of the building or that the property was suitable to be let. Their instructions are normally to advise on the structural integrity of the property and, when instructed by lenders, that the property represents good security for the mortgage provider to lend money against.
The aim of damages in cases of misrepresentation is to place the aggrieved party in a position they would have been had the misrepresentation not been made. Therefore the measure of damages may not necessarily be the full loss you have suffered, as damages will primarily be based on the difference in value of what you paid for the property and what a reasonable person would have paid had the issue been known about.
Before you spend any money on an expert, you might want to check that the report, once produced, would comply with Court rules.
Whilst we cannot give advice, as we do not know exactly what the situation is, we hope that our reply is of broad assistance to you. I you would like to consider the matter in more detail, please do feel free to get in touch with us.
We noticed a small damp patch in a bedroom before we bought a new build house. We raised the issue with the sellers, and asked them dirctly if it was damp. They said it was simply ‘wet paint’ from snagging done earlier that day. Content with their answer, we bought the house. Two weeks later, the patch re-appeared after rainfall, and has now grown much much worse. Turns out there is major structural issues with the roof.
Even worse, the new build warranty will not cover the cost of the work because there is an exclusion in relation to ‘Prior Knowledge’ which states: ‘Anything which would constitute a valid claim under the policy and about which the policyholder was aware prior to purchasing the Housing Unit’. Because we raised it as a potential issue before purchase, we have no claim.
Is this a possible case of misrepresentation?
We are sorry to hear about this, which must be extremely frustrating and disappointing.
From a misrepresentation point of view, this is presently difficult to advise you on. A lot of new build developers use their own terms and conditions or heavily amend the standard conditions of sale. On the assumption that some of the relevant standard contractual clauses were incorporated into your contract, then all representations, unless made in writing, would be contractually excluded from it. This would prevent them becoming contractual terms or amounting to misrepresentations. The reason for this is so that both parties can point to a single document as evidence to what terms were agreed between them. I cannot imagine that the developer would have excluded terms to this effect. If something has been put in writing during the course of negotiations, then there may be better scope to argue misrepresentation.
The exception to this if the representation was made fraudulently or recklessly. Fraud is very difficult to prove, as it effectively requires proving that there was a deliberate attempt to mislead. As for recklessness, this is not as difficult as fraud to prove but will turn on whether or not the statement made was done so recklessly. To what extent was the person with whom you spoke justified in explaining it was wet paint? It may very well have been a reasonable assessment to make, painting having taken place that day.
If you had a survey undertaken, you might have some scope to claim that your surveyor was negligent in failing to advise you of any defects. Professional negligence claims against surveyors turn heavily on the scope of their instructions and contractual terms and conditions.
Have you spoken with your insurers already? If not, we would suggest doing so. Whilst obviously you were aware of a damp patch and were informed that it was just wet paint, whether or not this amounts to a material non-disclosure entitling them to decline cover is another matter. You believed that it was wet paint and had no notice that the cause was a structural defect.
Even if your insurers decline to cover you, you might still have a claim against the developer. Under the Defective Premises Act 1972, a developer generally owes a duty of care to the purchaser to carry out the construction in a workmanlike/professional manner, using proper materials and ensuring that the property is fit for habitation once completed. You would probably need expert evidence to identify the defect and cost the proposed remedial works to prove a breach of these obligations and the loss you have suffered.
Whilst only general advice, we hope this is of some assistance. Do feel free to get in touch with us if you would like to explore the position further.
We have exchanged contracts and some new information has come to light, property has been converted to two semis from one large property, this has not been signed off by building control, council tax do not have it registered as such, there are no utilities even though seller said they were and just needed to be re connected. There is a dispute between neighbour and seller regarding boundary and no land registry or title deeds after 8 months. Our searches came back to say we are on mains drainage it now looks like we are on a shared septic tank, which the seller has not looked after for a long period of time, new regs for 2020 suggest this could need a complete replacement at a substantial cost. The seller demolished a room of the property without proper consultation with us after exchange leaving a wall with doorway open to the elements which has resulted in water damage. There is still a charge on the property and neighbours have said that on their part was not lifted after their completion, obviously this is extreamly concerning for us.
This is a total mess.
Whats our next step?
We are very sorry to hear of these difficulties, which sound very stressful indeed. You have mentioned quite a number of potential issues, some of which should have been addressed prior to exchange. Some of the points you mentioned would not ordinarily give rise to concern, for example the charge you mention would ordinarily be redeemed on completion and the seller’s solicitor would normally provide an undertaking to do this.
We can really only provide some broad opinion on the position and in short, there may be elements of misrepresentation here. You may also a contractual remedy under the standard conditions of sale if any statement in the contract or negotiations leading to it were inaccurate. If completion has not yet taken place and the error or omission is as a result of fraud or recklessness or you would be obliged to accept a property which differs significantly from what the error or omission led you to believe, then you may be able to rescind the contract. Rescission is effectively a cancellation of the contract of sale. This is a fairly extreme remedy and does not happen in practice very often. A claim for damages is normally the route to be undertaken and it may be the case that some negotiation can take place prior to completion to agree a variation of the contract to reduce the purchase price to settle the potential claims.
We may be able to assist you but your first port of call is certainly to raise your concerns with your solicitor and obtain advice.
Hi, we have just moved into our new house and on having the cooker installed our electrician has major concerns about recent additions to the electrical system that are unsafe. He has condemned the electrical system and has said it will cost £4k to test and redo. Our buyers stated on the Property Form that there had been no electrical work since 2006 and therefore no certificates. It is clear now that there have been fairly extensive substandard electrical installations carried out right until recently. would we have any recourse, we just would like the electrics done as we hve young children but do not have the money to pay for it?
You may have a claim here but for two reasons, you might have some difficulty pursuing it.
The first reason is one of evidence. Whilst your electrician seems to say that works were carried out recently, some better evidence of this would be required. A misrepresentation does not occur unless what someone says is a “false statement of fact”. If you cannot prove the works were carried out after 2006 (or 2005, as the property information form asks), your claim is unlikely to be successful as the statement made would likely to be found to be factually true.
The second reason is the fact that you appear to have accepted the risk that there were no installation certificates, irrespective of when any works were carried out. It is possible for claimants to contribute to their own loss by doing or not doing something. Sometimes, a person can cause their own loss entirely, reducing their damages to nothing. Sometimes that act or omission may break what is called “the chain of causation”, effectively meaning that this act or omission was the cause of the loss.
It is not possible to predict what the outcome of any case would be. We also have to qualify what we say here on the basis that we are unable to give legal advice on this forum and would not be able to provide more conclusive advice to a client without a better idea of the facts of the case. However, from what you have written, we can see a reasonable argument to say that armed with the knowledge that there were no installation certificates (because you believed that there weren’t any, because the works were completed before 2005 when they were not required), it was up to you to decide whether to accept the risk that the works were not compliant with legislation, withdraw from the transaction or seek some sort of agreement with the seller about what to do. It is possible that a Court might ultimately decide that you accepted the risk and proceeded with the transaction in light of this, which cannot be said to be the seller’s “fault”.
Further, for a claim of misrepresentation to exist, there must be reliance on the false statement of fact. It does not have to be the sole inducement to enter into the contract, but it must have contributed to the decision. The Court will consider whether the true facts and those as represented would have induced a reasonable person into the contract. We see there being a possible argument that you would have proceeded with the purchase anyway, and therefore did not rely on the statement. If the position that the seller adopts is that the statement was substantially correct, in terms of the fact that no installation certificates existed (either because the works pre-dated this requirement or they were not professionally undertaken), this may provide a reasonable defence to the seller, which the seller could use in addition to the points on contributory loss above.
We are sorry that we cannot provide more positive news, but if you did want to consider your matter in more detail with us, please feel free to get in touch and we can advise you of any fees we will charge to assist further.
I bought a house and was told on the property information form that the house had never suffered flooding which is false. The neighbours have confirmed all the street was flooded. I would probably not have purchased the property if I had known the truth or at least not at the asking price. I would like to know what I can do
We are sorry to hear of the difficulties you have encountered. Failing to disclose historical flooding of properties seems to be a growing problem.
Every case and every client is different, so in terms of what you can and should do, this does depend on the precise facts of the matter and what you are looking to achieve in terms of an outcome.
Whilst the obvious answer is normally that a client wants the maximum compensation possible, as “rescinding” the contract is not normally an option (rescission is where the contract is “reversed”), there can often be arguments about the level of that compensation.
Broadly the loss you have suffered is going to be the difference between what you paid for the property and what a reasonable person would have paid knowing about the defect, in this case, the flooding. Put into context, a property in a high demand area is less likely to suffer a loss of value than one in an area where there is low demand, even if the properties suffer from the same problem. Therefore, some evidence about what the value of the property with the defect disclosed might have been at the time of purchase, factoring in market conditions, might be important to obtain.
Case law on the subject explains that the Property Information Form is designed for a layperson to answer. As there is no statutory definition of “flooding”, this leaves open the question of what does or does not constitute flooding. Put into context again, some water retention in soil following particularly heavy rainfall could lead to an argument about whether or not this constituted flooding. This is a point which we have dealt with on other cases.
Having said this, the basic position is that if you relied on the answers when entering into the contract, and those answers were factually untrue, then there is a potential case for misrepresentation.
If you would like to get in touch with someone in our Litigation Department, please do not hesitate to contact us and we will give you an idea of the sort of work involved in matters like these.
I bought a flat last year, when making the decision to buy the flat I was told that a concierge would be on site in the management suite. This was also confirmed in all marketing documents. A year after buying the property the management suite has been sold off to a Lettings agency and the residents have been told that there will not be a concierge and if we want one we will have to pay more in service charges, although they originally said this would be inside our charges.
Unfortunately, I am not the only person to have been told this. I feel that not having the Management suite and Concierge has drastically devalued my property. Would this be deemed as Misrepresentation?
Thank you for your query.
There may be some issues here to explore but we would be hesitant to say that a claim in misrepresentation exists against the seller. The reality is that most contracts for the sale of property are conducted using an industry standard set of terms. If this was a new build purchase direct from the developer, they may have used their own contracts, however the same point will most likely apply.
The contract of sale will almost certainly contain what is called a “whole agreement” clause. This is a contractual clause in which the parties agree that unless something is in writing in the contract, in this case that they promise to keep the management suite and concierge on site for a particular period of time or a particular cost, then the other party is promising that they did not rely on any oral representations when entering into the contract. This may seem unfair but the intention behind it is to ensure that there is certainty for the parties moving forward. It means that both of the parties can feel confident that no claim might exist against the other for things said and which are not incorporated into the contract. In short, if this was something that was vital to you as a contracting party, the law would say that it would have expected you to ensure that it was incorporated as a contractual term.
This matter is a little more complicated insofar as what you are talking about is likely the obligations under the term of the lease for the landlord to supply these services. It would be unusual to have a fixed cost to the provision of specific services, as the cost of providing the services may rise or fall.
I hope this is of some help, although probably not what you wanted to hear. I would certainly advise reviewing the terms of your lease to see what obligations there may be on the landlord.
(This is general advice only and cannot be relied upon in substitution of proper legal advice)
I purchased a maisonette which was advertised as share of freehold. But after spending approximately £850 on search fees, conveyancing fees and valuation, my solicitor was informed by the vendor’s solicitor that there was no share of freehold even though the property was advertised as “share of freehold”. Due to this we had to pull out due to false information given. The property in now back on the market stating “leasehold”.
I have evidence to prove this.
Do I have a case to reclaim damages?
Thank you.
Hello Mark,
We are really sorry to hear of the difficulties you have had, which must have been very frustrating.
The basic position is that a claim for misrepresentation against a seller would only arise once a contract is completed. It is therefore unlikely that there would be a claim here, as you did not rely on what they said and go on to buy the property. It sounds as though your solicitor did what they were supposed to, which is to protect your position before you committed to buy something that you did not intend to buy.
Sometimes a different sort of claim might exist, based on what is called a negligent misstatement. However, this depends on showing that there was a duty of care between the parties. Unfortunately, there is no general duty of care between a buyer and seller and it is unlikely that you would be able to rely on a claim like this. It is a very rare case indeed where a seller’s solicitor can be held to owe a duty to the buyer, and this is normally limited to circumstances where the seller’s solicitor has failed to check things, such as the right of their client to sell the property.
We are sorry to say that from a legal point of view, it is quite unlikely you would be able to recover anything.
A final option is to consider the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Depending on how the property was described to you, the estate agent may have breached their obligations and misled you. If they are registered as members of the Property Ombudsman Scheme, this could give you an avenue to raise a complaint. This is a free service for consumers and their details can be found here, along with a case study: https://www.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press-releases/case-studies/item/more-problems-down-below
We hope this helps and wish you the best.
(This is general advice only and cannot be relied upon in substitution of proper legal advice)
Good afternoon,
We purchased a cottage in December 2017, on the property information form where the vendors were asked whether any extensions had been built, they answered no. We queried this as it was obvious that there was at least one extension.
They then said that they didn’t know when this had been built.
There are issues with the integrity of this extension and we have since discovered from neighbours that the vendors built this extension themselves .
Have the vendors been fraudulent in the property information form? Thanks.
Hi Phil
Thank you for your post.
Presumably you believe that the sellers built the extension themselves and denied this because they knew that it was not built correctly.
This is a situation which falls into the much debated area of “half-truths”. If someone is silent on a particular point, then it would be unusual for a misrepresentation claim to arise because the person would have no false statement of fact to rely on when entering into the contract. Likewise, is someone tells the “truth” then it cannot be said that the other party was misled.
However, the question arises as to what happens when someone says something which is a half-truth; something which might be true (they may very well no recall exactly when the extension was built) but because of what is not said, is in fact misleading.
There may be some scope here for a claim, however the fundamental issue is going to relate to whether or not it can be said that you were misled about the construction aspects of the extension.
It also strikes us that if it was discovered that there was an extension, this may very well have put your solicitors on notice that they needed to check for planning permissions and building control certificates. An extension should normally have a building control final certificate, which confirms that it complies with building regulations. There are some important caveats to this. If the seller had lived in the property for many years, then the extension may have been constructed at a time which makes future enforcement action unlikely or some of these requirements may not have been relevant. Also, the question of whether or not any survey was undertaken is something which needs to be considered. Structural defects are normally within the remit of any surveyor appointed to inspect the property. Sometimes these risks can be minimised by purchasing an insurance policy.
Whilst hesitant to suggest that there is definitely a claim here, we would be happy to look into the position in more detail for you if you would like to get in touch.
We completed on our sale two weeks ago when we got the keys it was clear that in the family room the wood flooring had suffered some pretty bad water damage. I couldn’t see any signs of where the water had come from and presumed it must of been caused be a historic leak, 10 days later it rains for the first time not heavy and water is coming up through the flooring! On the viewing the vendor had a rug in that exact spot with a table over the top so we couldn’t see the damage, on the TA6 form they stated the property had never been flooded. This is clearly a lie, where do I stand? Thanks
Thank you for your comment Sarah.
Depending on what was said in writing during the transaction, and the most obvious starting point is the property information form or TA6 as you have identified, then there may be a case for misrepresentation.
However, at the moment, you do not appear to have proof that there was a historical flood. To a certain degree, it is not vital that the seller was aware that there was a historical flood, or deliberately concealed this if there was. What is important is to show that there was a historical flood.
In all litigious matters it is important to bear in mind that if settlement cannot be achieved, the matter will go before a judge for determination. The judge will approach the case objectively and without taking sides. The burden of proof lies on the claimant to prove a position “on the balance of probabilities”. This means that a claimant must prove that their version of events is more likely to have occurred than the defendants. It is not for the defendant to disprove what the claimant says. You can presumably see the counter arguments that could arise, namely that the staining on the floor and which was covered by the rug was not caused by a flood but by something else. It would be for a claimant to prove, on the balance of probabilities (that is, more likely than not), that a flood did occur. In order to prove this a report from a suitably qualified surveyor or engineer would likely be required, unless there is some other evidence that a historical flood had occurred.
Approaching an expert for this sort of report can be done in several ways. Firstly, a decision to make an approach individually or jointly with the proposed defendant should be considered. Secondly, if Court proceedings are likely, some thought to obtaining a report which complies with all the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules (which govern the conduct of litigation in England and Wales) should be considered. This reports are more time consuming and therefore more expensive. Whilst reports which do not comply with the Civil Procedure Rules may be quicker and cheaper to obtain, they are of less probative value should the need to rely on them later arise.
Do feel free to get in touch if you would like to consider matters further.