416 thoughts on “My Seller Lied To Me! When Is It Property Misrepresentation?”
Hi there. My fiance and I bought a terraced house midway through December, and moved in in February. Recently, building work has started across the road from us, and to our surprise we have been informed by a neighbour that they are building houses where a gym was when we first moved in. The seller ticked ‘no’ under the relevant section for ‘any upcoming developments to the house or nearby buildings’ in the property information form, and we took them at their word on that- I would feel like their ticking ‘no’ would rid any dangers of ‘buyer beware’. The way they seem to be setting up means that the houses won’t overlook our house- as in they wouldn’t easily be able to see into our windows- but we feel like this is something that should be disclosed nonetheless. It would not have stopped us from buying the house, but we feel it would have affected the price. I know you can’t provide legal advice on here really, but does it sound like we could have a claim of some form?
If the seller had received a formal planning application notice, then potentially this is something that the seller should have disclosed and not ticked “no” in the property information form”. It would not be too difficult to find out from the Council if and when the seller was served with such a notice. If this is the case, then there may be a case for misrepresentation.
You will need to consider the value of your claim, and this is something that a solicitor can only advise on with expect input from a suitably qualified surveyor/valuer. Before embarking on any litigious process, it is important to consider the value of the claim and balance this against the cost of pursuing it. In this matter, it would be necessary to consider the difference between what you paid for the property and what a reasonable person, knowing about the proposed building, would have paid.
Do feel free to get in touch if you would like to explore the position further.
We bought a house in June 2019. We noticed a damp patch on the wall in the dining room. We asked about this several times to the seller. He said it was just the paint drying as he was doing the house. After a month the damp came through on almost all walls. We live on an end terrace. The gable end wall has many random damp patches coming through and the front bedroom was full of mould. I contacted the conveyancer to see why this wasn’t picked up and was told it was a new problem or the seller had hidden it. We now have damp in every room in the house apart from 1 room. We don’t have the funds to fix it but obviously we wouldn’t have paid the price for the house if we knew there were problems. The seller has blocked my number after saying he would come round to “sort it”. What options do I have, if any?
In terms of your options, these are either to repair the issue when you can afford it (you may want to contact your buildings insurer on this) or pursue the seller.
If it can be proved that there was a deliberate concealment of the issue, then there could be scope to claim fraudulent misrepresentation, but this would depend on what other things were said during the transaction. Normally, oral representations (i.e. merely stating that it was the paint drying) would be excluded from being actionable under the terms of the contract. It would also be necessary to consider your surveyor’s report, as this would normally identify the issue of damp.
From what you have written, it would appear that you would need expert input on when the damp issue started and that anyone living in the house at that time (i.e. the seller) would have been aware of it. The fact that the seller said that they would “fix” the problem, does lend itself to the possibility that the seller was aware of the position.
Pursuing a seller in this way would incur expenses by way of legal costs. You may want to consider the cost of rectifying the issue before seeking quotes from solicitors to consider the position and potentially pursue the claim. Whilst it is often difficult to explain to clients, if the potential cost of pursuing a claim when balanced against the cost of rectifying the position would potentially leave the client financially worse off, then this is something to consider carefully before embarking on a litigious process.
Hi. I have just discovered from my next door neighbour (we live in adjoining semi-detached houses) that my house (purchased in 2016) was subject to extensive underpinning for subsidence in 1994 – a year before the person we bought the house from had purchased tbe property. It is quite clear from what my neighbour (whose house required underpinning in 1996/7 ) has told me that the person we bought the house from was aware of it (and I believe I can get evidence of this), yet this was never disclosed to us prior to us buying the house, despite them presumably being fully aware of the implications, being an architect. Unfortunately the standard pre-purchase questions don’t include “has the house ever been underpinned” and apart from some minor omissions (which however might have led to us discovering this issue) , it appears to have been truthfully completed. Our full structural survey didn’t identify the historic problem. My belief is that the purchase price would have been significantly lower (possibly by 10%+) had a full disclosure about the historic underpinning been made to us and I am wondering whether we may have a viable case against the seller or is it purely caveat emptor? Many thanks.
From what you describe, it does appear that you may be correct in your assumption that “caveat emptor”, or “buyer beware” will apply. Broadly, there must be an actual statement made which is untrue for a claim in misrepresentation to exist. Silence will rarely amount to a misrepresentation.
You are also correct to identify that underpinning can sometimes have a permanent “blighting” effect on the property, leading to some reduction in value. We would not be able to give you advice as to what this is, as this would fall within the remit of a suitably qualified surveyor, whose advice we would need to take.
Whilst not all conveyancing firms use the standard Law Society property information form, on the assumption that the standard one was used, there is a section on underpinning guarantees. The answer to this question might be factually incorrect, but it would be necessary to prove this. It could be the case that a copy of the guarantee was supplied to your solicitor, in which case the question arises as to whether or not it was supplied to you or explained sufficiently clearly.
There is also a section in the standard property information form relating to other things which the seller thinks the buyer should now about. However, we are hesitant to suggest that failing to mention the underpinning in this section would amount to a misrepresentation, in particular, because if the property had been underpinned historically and there had been no problems since, then arguably the seller was correct to assume that it would not be something that a buyer would be overly concerned about even if they did know about it.
You may want to consider the scope of the instructions in respect of your surveyor that undertook the full structural survey. If it was something that could have been reasonably discovered and something which your surveyor was appointed to consider, then you may have a claim for professional negligence. Your loss in this respect would have been the loss of the opportunity to negotiate the price with the seller.
We hope that this general guidance is of some assistance.
Apologies for responding in the wrong place earlier!
I don’t suppose the fact that the seller lied to their building insurer has any relevance here? Their building insurance renewal documents from a couple of weeks prior to completion (& which we’re given to me) included a home proposal confirmation in which the question “Has the home ever been affected by subsidence or structural movement? “ was answered as “no”.
This is an interesting point. The relevance of what someone says to a third party is likely to be whether or not it was ever intended that the person entering into the contract was going to rely on the response. It could be relevant to whether or not there has been a deliberate concealment of matters, giving rise to a potential claim for fraudulent misrepresentation.
Delayed completion: what are your options when someone in your chain of property transactions is late? With a group of strangers all working toward completing on the same date, it's a wonder it ever works out on time.
This collection of cases of property misrepresentation claims should remind all of us how important it is to tell the truth on a Property Information Form
Supporting Farleigh Hospice | Limited Places Available We’re delighted to announce that Cunningtons is once again partnering with Farleigh Hospice for the annual Make a Will charity campaign this September! What We’re Offering ✅ Completely FREE Will preparation by our qualified solicitors;✅ Professional legal advice and guidance on making your Will; and of course,✅ Support […]
Hi there. My fiance and I bought a terraced house midway through December, and moved in in February.
Recently, building work has started across the road from us, and to our surprise we have been informed by a neighbour that they are building houses where a gym was when we first moved in.
The seller ticked ‘no’ under the relevant section for ‘any upcoming developments to the house or nearby buildings’ in the property information form, and we took them at their word on that- I would feel like their ticking ‘no’ would rid any dangers of ‘buyer beware’.
The way they seem to be setting up means that the houses won’t overlook our house- as in they wouldn’t easily be able to see into our windows- but we feel like this is something that should be disclosed nonetheless.
It would not have stopped us from buying the house, but we feel it would have affected the price.
I know you can’t provide legal advice on here really, but does it sound like we could have a claim of some form?
Thank you for your comment Alex.
If the seller had received a formal planning application notice, then potentially this is something that the seller should have disclosed and not ticked “no” in the property information form”. It would not be too difficult to find out from the Council if and when the seller was served with such a notice. If this is the case, then there may be a case for misrepresentation.
You will need to consider the value of your claim, and this is something that a solicitor can only advise on with expect input from a suitably qualified surveyor/valuer. Before embarking on any litigious process, it is important to consider the value of the claim and balance this against the cost of pursuing it. In this matter, it would be necessary to consider the difference between what you paid for the property and what a reasonable person, knowing about the proposed building, would have paid.
Do feel free to get in touch if you would like to explore the position further.
Hello.
We bought a house in June 2019. We noticed a damp patch on the wall in the dining room. We asked about this several times to the seller. He said it was just the paint drying as he was doing the house. After a month the damp came through on almost all walls. We live on an end terrace. The gable end wall has many random damp patches coming through and the front bedroom was full of mould. I contacted the conveyancer to see why this wasn’t picked up and was told it was a new problem or the seller had hidden it. We now have damp in every room in the house apart from 1 room. We don’t have the funds to fix it but obviously we wouldn’t have paid the price for the house if we knew there were problems. The seller has blocked my number after saying he would come round to “sort it”. What options do I have, if any?
Kind regards,
Nathanael.
Thank you for your comment Nathanael.
In terms of your options, these are either to repair the issue when you can afford it (you may want to contact your buildings insurer on this) or pursue the seller.
If it can be proved that there was a deliberate concealment of the issue, then there could be scope to claim fraudulent misrepresentation, but this would depend on what other things were said during the transaction. Normally, oral representations (i.e. merely stating that it was the paint drying) would be excluded from being actionable under the terms of the contract. It would also be necessary to consider your surveyor’s report, as this would normally identify the issue of damp.
From what you have written, it would appear that you would need expert input on when the damp issue started and that anyone living in the house at that time (i.e. the seller) would have been aware of it. The fact that the seller said that they would “fix” the problem, does lend itself to the possibility that the seller was aware of the position.
Pursuing a seller in this way would incur expenses by way of legal costs. You may want to consider the cost of rectifying the issue before seeking quotes from solicitors to consider the position and potentially pursue the claim. Whilst it is often difficult to explain to clients, if the potential cost of pursuing a claim when balanced against the cost of rectifying the position would potentially leave the client financially worse off, then this is something to consider carefully before embarking on a litigious process.
Hi. I have just discovered from my next door neighbour (we live in adjoining semi-detached houses) that my house (purchased in 2016) was subject to extensive underpinning for subsidence in 1994 – a year before the person we bought the house from had purchased tbe property. It is quite clear from what my neighbour (whose house required underpinning in 1996/7 ) has told me that the person we bought the house from was aware of it (and I believe I can get evidence of this), yet this was never disclosed to us prior to us buying the house, despite them presumably being fully aware of the implications, being an architect. Unfortunately the standard pre-purchase questions don’t include “has the house ever been underpinned” and apart from some minor omissions (which however might have led to us discovering this issue) , it appears to have been truthfully completed. Our full structural survey didn’t identify the historic problem. My belief is that the purchase price would have been significantly lower (possibly by 10%+) had a full disclosure about the historic underpinning been made to us and I am wondering whether we may have a viable case against the seller or is it purely caveat emptor? Many thanks.
Thank you for your comment David.
From what you describe, it does appear that you may be correct in your assumption that “caveat emptor”, or “buyer beware” will apply. Broadly, there must be an actual statement made which is untrue for a claim in misrepresentation to exist. Silence will rarely amount to a misrepresentation.
You are also correct to identify that underpinning can sometimes have a permanent “blighting” effect on the property, leading to some reduction in value. We would not be able to give you advice as to what this is, as this would fall within the remit of a suitably qualified surveyor, whose advice we would need to take.
Whilst not all conveyancing firms use the standard Law Society property information form, on the assumption that the standard one was used, there is a section on underpinning guarantees. The answer to this question might be factually incorrect, but it would be necessary to prove this. It could be the case that a copy of the guarantee was supplied to your solicitor, in which case the question arises as to whether or not it was supplied to you or explained sufficiently clearly.
There is also a section in the standard property information form relating to other things which the seller thinks the buyer should now about. However, we are hesitant to suggest that failing to mention the underpinning in this section would amount to a misrepresentation, in particular, because if the property had been underpinned historically and there had been no problems since, then arguably the seller was correct to assume that it would not be something that a buyer would be overly concerned about even if they did know about it.
You may want to consider the scope of the instructions in respect of your surveyor that undertook the full structural survey. If it was something that could have been reasonably discovered and something which your surveyor was appointed to consider, then you may have a claim for professional negligence. Your loss in this respect would have been the loss of the opportunity to negotiate the price with the seller.
We hope that this general guidance is of some assistance.
Hi
Many thanks.
Apologies for responding in the wrong place earlier!
I don’t suppose the fact that the seller lied to their building insurer has any relevance here? Their building insurance renewal documents from a couple of weeks prior to completion (& which we’re given to me) included a home proposal confirmation in which the question “Has the home ever been affected by subsidence or structural movement? “ was answered as “no”.
This is an interesting point. The relevance of what someone says to a third party is likely to be whether or not it was ever intended that the person entering into the contract was going to rely on the response. It could be relevant to whether or not there has been a deliberate concealment of matters, giving rise to a potential claim for fraudulent misrepresentation.