416 thoughts on “My Seller Lied To Me! When Is It Property Misrepresentation?”
Hi Mark, We recently moved property in November 2019 and have been slowly renovating the dated house room by room.
Before buying, we wanted to be clear on all the structural changes that the property had undergone under the ownership of the vendor. We queried a chimney breast removal which hadn’t been highlighted up to this point by the vendor, and we were subsequently supplied with documents that showcased the work in question by a building surveyor/structural engineer.
In short, the documents/calcs show the requirement for an RSJ to be fitted above the removed chimney breast.
Last week, I removed the facade and overlay that presumably covered this RSJ, only to find a lopsided, barely-there concrete lintel, literally put in at a crude angle.
I’m in the process of having a new structural engineer finalise Thier assessment of the work that’s been done and the work that will now be required to make it good.
Does this sound like misrepresentation of some sort to you?
Thanks in advance for any advice or opinion you can provide!
For a misrepresentation to exist, there must be a statement which is untrue and this statement must be relied upon to some degree when entering into the contract.
Structural issues are not normally something which a seller would provide information about but if you have specifically asked something and the response was untrue, then there may be a claim for misrepresentation.
The standard conditions of sale would normally exclude things such as oral discussions. For example, if you questioned the chimney breast during a viewing, to be presented with some documentation at that point to satisfy you, we would be hesitant to say that you were able to pursue a claim. If the standard conditions of sale were included into the contract, you have contractually agreed not to rely on any representations unless these are in writing. This may sound unfair but the point of this clause is to bring some finality to the transaction and ensure that the parties incorporate everything they want to into the contract. However, the standard conditions of sale do not exclude fraudulent or reckless misrepresentation. If the sellers were led to believe that the documentation that they were supplied with represented the work undertaken, then it is doubtful that there would be any claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. As for reckless misrepresentation, we suspect that the matter would turn on whether or not it is reasonable for a seller to provide the documentation without checking that the work contained in the documentation was completed. Unless the sellers knew or were aware of the problem, which might be difficult to prove, we are hesitant to suggest that there is claim for misrepresentation in this respect.
On the other hand, if this was an additional enquiry that you raised via your solicitor and the response was to provide materially incorrect documentation, with or without explanation, then there may be a claim for misrepresentation. It would potentially be for you to pursue the sellers and the sellers to pursue their builders for an indemnity, so far as they are able and depending on the amount of time that has passed.
Normally it is advisable for purchasers to undertake a survey. If you instructed a surveyor, it would be worthwhile considering the scope of their instructions. It may be that your surveyor missed this point and can be considered negligent. However, most surveyors’ terms and conditions for basic surveys will exclude any duty to look being walls and wall coverings.
We also recommend that you check what buildings or other insurance you have in place, as you may be covered for a structural defect.
Whilst we are unable to provide any specific advice on this website which can be relied upon, we hope that the above guidance is of some assistance. Please do feel free to get in touch if you would like to consider the matter further.
My partner and I bought our house in February this year. Having then wanted to do some electrical installation, it came to light that the circuit board was outdated and in fact now condemned. It also came to light that although the seller said there had been no electrical work in the last 10 years – there had obviously been some. My feeling is this should have brought this issue to light – as it seems this is the only question related to electrics that was asked. We are now looking at a bill of £5000 for a full rewire having paid full asking price. Am I clutching at straws? Do I fall under buyer beware as it seems neither the solicitor nor surveyor apparently is obliged to draw our attention to this. Thank you
You are correct that the basic principle is buyer beware or “caveat emptor”. However, if you can prove that there were electrical works undertaken at some point, contrary to what is stated in the property information form, then there may be a claim for misrepresentation. However, most of the time, the measure of damage would be diminution in value. This is the difference in the price paid for the property and what would have been paid had the defect been known about. Therefore, your loss might not be £5,000. It could be less.
You would also need to show that you relied on this statement when entering into the contract. You mention in your post that there had “obviously” been some work. If you knew that work had been undertaken and the seller was not telling the truth in the property information, you arguably did not rely on the statement when entering into the contract; you already knew the truth.
I think it is unlikely that your solicitor could be blamed for not being able to identify defective wiring. A solicitor’s retainer is likely to extend only to undertaking the legal work. Case law on solicitor negligence matters is such that unless there was a risk which was not obvious to a client and only obvious to a solicitor, then there would be a duty to highlight this. Having said this, if the property information form identified issues (such as a lack of certificates) we suspect that there might be some obligation to point out the effect of this.
We are not certain that a claim would lie against your surveyor either. Whether or not your surveyor agreed to look at the circuit board itself is another matter. Surveyors will generally undertake checks of the structure and integrity of the property. What a surveyor is contracted to do depends on the terms of their retainer and whether or not your surveyor could be held liable for not pointing out a defective circuit board . This is the same with any professional negligence matter. The starting point is to look at what the professional has promised to do in their written retainer and decide whether or not there is a breach of any of those duties.
We hope that this general guidance is of some help.
Hi Mark, me and my partner purchased our first property in May2019. It is next to a brook and on the Environmental survey report it states that the area would have a 1 in 75 year chance of flooding. And the main issue is on the Property Inspection Form that we were provided the seller did not tick this ‘river’ flooding box. Or any in matter of fact. Since we have moved in the garden has been flooded 5 times and we have also had sewer flooding due to Severn Trent on most of these occasions (but they are looking into this).
After speaking to the neighbour he has said that the garden is always liable to flooding. We feel that regularity of our flooding indicates that we have been given incorrect information. Is there anything we can do about this?
We are sorry to hear about this but it is not an uncommon issue. There may be a case to answer here if it can be proved that the garden was liable to flooding and had flooded in previous years during the seller’s ownership; it is not generally a defence to say that the buyer could have discovered the truth. The basic position is that a buyer is entitled to rely on what the seller says I the property information form, which is not obligatory for the seller to complete.
However, from what you have written, it seems that the seller did tick the relevant boxes in the property information form to say that flooding had occurred, but was not specific about the source of the flooding, to say it was the river. If this is the case, it might make the case more difficult. It would likely be necessary to prove that the source of the historical flooding was as a result of the river, which might be difficult.
Also, the fact that an environmental report identified the issue, albeit to a significantly less extent than you may have been led to believe, might be relevant to the question of whether or not you contributed to your own loss by not undertaking further enquiries and whether or not it can be said that you were entitled to rely exclusively on the seller’s representations. For a misrepresentation to occur, there normally needs to be a specific statement of fact by the seller, which the buyer relied on when entering into the contract and which is not correct.
We hope that this general guidance is of some assistance. If you would like to explore the matter in more detail with us, please feel free to get in touch.
Supporting Farleigh Hospice | Limited Places Available We’re delighted to announce that Cunningtons is once again partnering with Farleigh Hospice for the annual Make a Will charity campaign this September! What We’re Offering ✅ Completely FREE Will preparation by our qualified solicitors;✅ Professional legal advice and guidance on making your Will; and of course,✅ Support […]
Planning for the future as we get older is a vital part of life – that’s why many of us provide for ourselves with pensions and Wills. However, one of the most important tools available to us is often neglected: Lasting Powers of Attorney. According to CanadaLife UK, 78% of UK adults don’t have a […]
Cunningtons help with "Your Legal Journey Through Life". We cover key areas: your first home, your relationships and family law, then growing families, employment matters, dispute resolutions, property investments, and planning your estate. We focus on continuity, trust, understanding clients, and personal service by offering the same legal team throughout life.
Hi Mark,
We recently moved property in November 2019 and have been slowly renovating the dated house room by room.
Before buying, we wanted to be clear on all the structural changes that the property had undergone under the ownership of the vendor. We queried a chimney breast removal which hadn’t been highlighted up to this point by the vendor, and we were subsequently supplied with documents that showcased the work in question by a building surveyor/structural engineer.
In short, the documents/calcs show the requirement for an RSJ to be fitted above the removed chimney breast.
Last week, I removed the facade and overlay that presumably covered this RSJ, only to find a lopsided, barely-there concrete lintel, literally put in at a crude angle.
I’m in the process of having a new structural engineer finalise Thier assessment of the work that’s been done and the work that will now be required to make it good.
Does this sound like misrepresentation of some sort to you?
Thanks in advance for any advice or opinion you can provide!
Thank you for your comment.
For a misrepresentation to exist, there must be a statement which is untrue and this statement must be relied upon to some degree when entering into the contract.
Structural issues are not normally something which a seller would provide information about but if you have specifically asked something and the response was untrue, then there may be a claim for misrepresentation.
The standard conditions of sale would normally exclude things such as oral discussions. For example, if you questioned the chimney breast during a viewing, to be presented with some documentation at that point to satisfy you, we would be hesitant to say that you were able to pursue a claim. If the standard conditions of sale were included into the contract, you have contractually agreed not to rely on any representations unless these are in writing. This may sound unfair but the point of this clause is to bring some finality to the transaction and ensure that the parties incorporate everything they want to into the contract. However, the standard conditions of sale do not exclude fraudulent or reckless misrepresentation. If the sellers were led to believe that the documentation that they were supplied with represented the work undertaken, then it is doubtful that there would be any claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. As for reckless misrepresentation, we suspect that the matter would turn on whether or not it is reasonable for a seller to provide the documentation without checking that the work contained in the documentation was completed. Unless the sellers knew or were aware of the problem, which might be difficult to prove, we are hesitant to suggest that there is claim for misrepresentation in this respect.
On the other hand, if this was an additional enquiry that you raised via your solicitor and the response was to provide materially incorrect documentation, with or without explanation, then there may be a claim for misrepresentation. It would potentially be for you to pursue the sellers and the sellers to pursue their builders for an indemnity, so far as they are able and depending on the amount of time that has passed.
Normally it is advisable for purchasers to undertake a survey. If you instructed a surveyor, it would be worthwhile considering the scope of their instructions. It may be that your surveyor missed this point and can be considered negligent. However, most surveyors’ terms and conditions for basic surveys will exclude any duty to look being walls and wall coverings.
We also recommend that you check what buildings or other insurance you have in place, as you may be covered for a structural defect.
Whilst we are unable to provide any specific advice on this website which can be relied upon, we hope that the above guidance is of some assistance. Please do feel free to get in touch if you would like to consider the matter further.
My partner and I bought our house in February this year.
Having then wanted to do some electrical installation, it came to light that the circuit board was outdated and in fact now condemned.
It also came to light that although the seller said there had been no electrical work in the last 10 years – there had obviously been some.
My feeling is this should have brought this issue to light – as it seems this is the only question related to electrics that was asked.
We are now looking at a bill of £5000 for a full rewire having paid full asking price.
Am I clutching at straws? Do I fall under buyer beware as it seems neither the solicitor nor surveyor apparently is obliged to draw our attention to this.
Thank you
Thank you for your comment.
You are correct that the basic principle is buyer beware or “caveat emptor”. However, if you can prove that there were electrical works undertaken at some point, contrary to what is stated in the property information form, then there may be a claim for misrepresentation. However, most of the time, the measure of damage would be diminution in value. This is the difference in the price paid for the property and what would have been paid had the defect been known about. Therefore, your loss might not be £5,000. It could be less.
You would also need to show that you relied on this statement when entering into the contract. You mention in your post that there had “obviously” been some work. If you knew that work had been undertaken and the seller was not telling the truth in the property information, you arguably did not rely on the statement when entering into the contract; you already knew the truth.
I think it is unlikely that your solicitor could be blamed for not being able to identify defective wiring. A solicitor’s retainer is likely to extend only to undertaking the legal work. Case law on solicitor negligence matters is such that unless there was a risk which was not obvious to a client and only obvious to a solicitor, then there would be a duty to highlight this. Having said this, if the property information form identified issues (such as a lack of certificates) we suspect that there might be some obligation to point out the effect of this.
We are not certain that a claim would lie against your surveyor either. Whether or not your surveyor agreed to look at the circuit board itself is another matter. Surveyors will generally undertake checks of the structure and integrity of the property. What a surveyor is contracted to do depends on the terms of their retainer and whether or not your surveyor could be held liable for not pointing out a defective circuit board . This is the same with any professional negligence matter. The starting point is to look at what the professional has promised to do in their written retainer and decide whether or not there is a breach of any of those duties.
We hope that this general guidance is of some help.
Hi Mark, me and my partner purchased our first property in May2019. It is next to a brook and on the Environmental survey report it states that the area would have a 1 in 75 year chance of flooding. And the main issue is on the Property Inspection Form that we were provided the seller did not tick this ‘river’ flooding box. Or any in matter of fact. Since we have moved in the garden has been flooded 5 times and we have also had sewer flooding due to Severn Trent on most of these occasions (but they are looking into this).
After speaking to the neighbour he has said that the garden is always liable to flooding. We feel that regularity of our flooding indicates that we have been given incorrect information. Is there anything we can do about this?
Thank you for your comment Adam.
We are sorry to hear about this but it is not an uncommon issue. There may be a case to answer here if it can be proved that the garden was liable to flooding and had flooded in previous years during the seller’s ownership; it is not generally a defence to say that the buyer could have discovered the truth. The basic position is that a buyer is entitled to rely on what the seller says I the property information form, which is not obligatory for the seller to complete.
However, from what you have written, it seems that the seller did tick the relevant boxes in the property information form to say that flooding had occurred, but was not specific about the source of the flooding, to say it was the river. If this is the case, it might make the case more difficult. It would likely be necessary to prove that the source of the historical flooding was as a result of the river, which might be difficult.
Also, the fact that an environmental report identified the issue, albeit to a significantly less extent than you may have been led to believe, might be relevant to the question of whether or not you contributed to your own loss by not undertaking further enquiries and whether or not it can be said that you were entitled to rely exclusively on the seller’s representations. For a misrepresentation to occur, there normally needs to be a specific statement of fact by the seller, which the buyer relied on when entering into the contract and which is not correct.
We hope that this general guidance is of some assistance. If you would like to explore the matter in more detail with us, please feel free to get in touch.