416 thoughts on “My Seller Lied To Me! When Is It Property Misrepresentation?”
Hello,
We purchased a 3 bed semi-detached house in May 2020. The seller who stated he had been there since 1984 answered ‘no’ on point 4.1a on the TA5 form ((Have any of the following changes been made to the whole or any part of the property? Building works (eg. extensions, loft or garage conversion, removal of internal walls)).
Our survey noted that some internal walls had been removed/altered and that it should have been carried out with building regulation approval and recommended to enquire with our legal advisers. We enquired with our solicitor and the seller said: “There has never been any walls removed don’t no why the surveyor put that on the report.”.
We’ve now been in the house for a couple of months and experienced 3 different leaks. All the leaks have been a result of the shower which looks to have been the area our surveyor had noted regarding having building work done (internal wall removed). Upon having a builder and plumbing come and look at the shower and repair the leaks they have confirmed that it wasn’t part of the original bathroom and had been added (different spotlights vs the rest of the bathroom, ceiling texture is different where the wall originally was, new joists going the opposite way etc). We’ve also removed wallpaper that has revealed calculations and markings for the addition around the new walls. The addition to the bathroom is a shower which extends over the bottom of the stairs that would’ve included new pipework and drainage. We’ve spoken to our neighbours whose house is connected to ours and was built at the same time and they have shown us their bathroom which doesn’t include a shower over the top of the stairs and only has a bath (ours doesn’t have a bath).
We’re looking to modernise our bathroom which will include the shower but we are hesitant to do any work on it now in case the new flooring/structure isn’t strong enough and will support what we want to do. Would we be in a position to make a claim for misrepresentation under the ground a new addition has been added to the bathroom without building regulations approvals and the seller has state that no work had been carried out at all?
The fundamental point here is whether or not what has been said in the property information form and normally in writing between your solicitors and the seller’s solicitors is factually untrue. If it is, then there may be a claim for misrepresentation.
However, we would be hesitant with a matter like this, as the value of the claim may not be as high as some clients often imagine. The basic position is that the loss someone suffers as a result of a misrepresentation is the difference between what was paid for the property and what someone would have paid for it knowing the truth. This is called diminution in value. The cost of repairing the situation is not necessarily the correct or standard measure of damages. We appreciate that this is an inconvenience and a worry, but whether or not this would have a material impact on the value of the property is questionable. This is something that would be worthwhile considering with a valuer.
Putting diminution in value into context, we have acted in the past for a client who required substantial underpinning to their property. The cost of these works was in the region of £70,000. However, the property was in a highly sought after area, meaning that the impact on the value of the property itself was not as much as this. Put another way, a potential purchaser may be prepared to put up with some defects or bear the cost of some repairs themselves because the property represents a good investment.
Having said this, it is conceivable that if presented with the correct information, your solicitor may have advised you and you may have obtained lack of building regulations approval insurance, which may have covered the cost of any rectification. The aim of any award of damages in misrepresentation cases is to put the aggrieved party in the position it would have been in had the misrepresentation not been made. It would be fairly standard practice for a solicitor to advise their client to consider insurance in the event of works being undertaken to a property which required building consent but this was not provided or obtained by the seller. Damages are intended cover the amount that the aggrieved party is out of pocket by. It may therefore be possible to argue that the cost of any rectification works should be met by the seller.
However, every case is very fact specific. What facts in any particular case lend themselves to particular legal principles established in previous case law will differ.
Do feel to get in touch with us if you would like to explore the matter in more detail.
My partner and I purchased our house a couple of years ago and on the property information form the sellers said that they had not undertaken any structural works, and ticked no to any windows or glazed doors being installed during the time they owned the house. We have now started our own extension on the rear of the property only to find the left side of the house was just proper up by a jack and no lintel had ever been installed, similarly on the right hand side where there were patio doors (which neighbours have confirmed they watched the previous owner install) there is no supporting lintel above them either, leaving the whole rear of the house vulnerable, obviously this was not picked up in our survey as it is all encased in the plasterboard, would we have a case that we were mislead?
It does sound as though there is the prospect of a misrepresentation claim here. You have lost the opportunity to ask for building certificates and the like and as a result, have purchased a property which may be suffering from some structural defects.
However, at the moment, you appear to only have the neighbour’s word that the seller installed the patio doors. We suspect some more investigation and evidence gathering would be required to be able to prove that works were undertaken during their period of ownership and not before this.
If you would like to get in touch to discuss the position further, please feel free to contact us.
Hi, Looking for some advice in regards to ownership and use of a garage.
We moved into the property 6 years ago with a garage that we assumed was part of our back garden. We have had and still currently use this garage for storage and have maintained it since moving in, as we were given the keys to it. It has recently come to light that another neighbour across the street actually owns the garage and when checking the land registry it is actually the neighbours garage plot.
I am wondering if you know where we stand in regards to being mislead into believing we owned a/the garage. Upon looking further into paperwork the estate agents advertised the property with a garage and it was agreed on the seller property information form (ta6) that there was a private garage with the property. Also when viewing the house the owners at the time also used the garage themselves for storage.
The title plans show a garage on the land just not in the position it currently is. We were thinking of selling within the next couple of years but can no longer sell with a garage/land which we thought we had paid for as part of the valuation made in 2014. Are we entitled to make a complaint to the EA in regards to misleading information?
Many thanks for your comment. It does sound as though this could cause you difficulties.
The amount of time that has gone by might prove to be a problem. Basic limitation periods for misrepresentation claims are six years from the date of the misrepresentation/contract, so you may be out of time to pursue the seller for damages.
What is said in estate agents particulars and discussed during the course of the transaction is not as important as to consider what the contract of sale actually said and how it described the property. The pre-contract documentation and discussions can amount to misrepresentations if they were reckless or fraudulent, but if they were made with an honest belief, then they would not readily lend themselves to a claim for misrepresentation. This is because normally, the Standard Conditions of Sale will apply to residential conveyancing transactions. These specifically exclude things which are said by other parties other than in writing and between the buyer and seller or their respective solicitors.
The property information form will be very relevant and if it describes the property as having a garage when it does not, then, subject to any limitation period, there is likely to be a claim at the very least for innocent misrepresentation. This would potentially entitle you to claim damages based on diminution in value. This is the difference between what you paid for the property at the time and what someone would have paid for the property at the time without a garage.
Depending on how long the previous owner or owners used the garage, provided that this was not pursuant to any sort of agreement with the person that actually owns it, there could be a possible adverse possession claim. This is when someone occupies a property or piece of land, to the exclusion of all others for the required period of time (this is normally 10 years for registered land, which your property sounds as though it is). This might entitle you to apply to be registered as the owner. However, the actual owner might very well have grounds to object to this and would be notified of the application. The historical use of the garage and how the situation came to be what it is would be very important to consider before embarking on this route. Likewise, an approach to the actual owner might be detrimental. An adverse possession application can be defeated by “acknowledging the true owner’s title”. This means that if you accept that the garage is owned by someone else, this could mean that you lose any right to claim adverse possession.
We cannot provide any real advice on whether or not there is a possible professional negligence claim here against either your solicitor or surveyor. It would be necessary to consider what they were instructed to do and the advice they were expected to give. Professional negligence claims can be pursued even if the negligence occurred more than six years ago (up to a maximum of fifteen years). This happens when it is not possible for the person that instructed the professional to have known that there was any negligence and extends the deadline to bring a claim to three years from the date that the aggrieved person became aware of or should have become aware of the negligence. I would add that it would be unusual for a solicitor to undertake any sort of site visit or agree to do anything other than to ask their client to confirm that their understanding of what they were buyer was correct.
The situation may also be a problem for your mortgage provider, if you purchased with the assistance of a mortgage. They leant money against the property based on its value, which must have included the garage. If the lender’s security (the property) is not worth what they were led to believe, issues might arise.
It would be necessary to consider the conveyancing file in detail, to see whether or not there is scope for a claim and who this might be against. Whilst we can obtain your purchase file, you should be aware that a solicitor owns some parts of the file, and this would include copy correspondence with you. It sounds as though you may have done this already, but we would recommend you look for any old correspondence that your solicitor sent you, as copies might not be supplied to you when you ask for the file.
If you would like some assistance in looking into the position, please do 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.
Hello,
We purchased a 3 bed semi-detached house in May 2020. The seller who stated he had been there since 1984 answered ‘no’ on point 4.1a on the TA5 form ((Have any of the following changes been made to the whole or any part of the property? Building works (eg. extensions, loft or garage conversion, removal of internal walls)).
Our survey noted that some internal walls had been removed/altered and that it should have been carried out with building regulation approval and recommended to enquire with our legal advisers. We enquired with our solicitor and the seller said: “There has never been any walls removed don’t no why the surveyor put that on the report.”.
We’ve now been in the house for a couple of months and experienced 3 different leaks. All the leaks have been a result of the shower which looks to have been the area our surveyor had noted regarding having building work done (internal wall removed). Upon having a builder and plumbing come and look at the shower and repair the leaks they have confirmed that it wasn’t part of the original bathroom and had been added (different spotlights vs the rest of the bathroom, ceiling texture is different where the wall originally was, new joists going the opposite way etc). We’ve also removed wallpaper that has revealed calculations and markings for the addition around the new walls. The addition to the bathroom is a shower which extends over the bottom of the stairs that would’ve included new pipework and drainage. We’ve spoken to our neighbours whose house is connected to ours and was built at the same time and they have shown us their bathroom which doesn’t include a shower over the top of the stairs and only has a bath (ours doesn’t have a bath).
We’re looking to modernise our bathroom which will include the shower but we are hesitant to do any work on it now in case the new flooring/structure isn’t strong enough and will support what we want to do. Would we be in a position to make a claim for misrepresentation under the ground a new addition has been added to the bathroom without building regulations approvals and the seller has state that no work had been carried out at all?
Thank you for your comment Jack.
The fundamental point here is whether or not what has been said in the property information form and normally in writing between your solicitors and the seller’s solicitors is factually untrue. If it is, then there may be a claim for misrepresentation.
However, we would be hesitant with a matter like this, as the value of the claim may not be as high as some clients often imagine. The basic position is that the loss someone suffers as a result of a misrepresentation is the difference between what was paid for the property and what someone would have paid for it knowing the truth. This is called diminution in value. The cost of repairing the situation is not necessarily the correct or standard measure of damages. We appreciate that this is an inconvenience and a worry, but whether or not this would have a material impact on the value of the property is questionable. This is something that would be worthwhile considering with a valuer.
Putting diminution in value into context, we have acted in the past for a client who required substantial underpinning to their property. The cost of these works was in the region of £70,000. However, the property was in a highly sought after area, meaning that the impact on the value of the property itself was not as much as this. Put another way, a potential purchaser may be prepared to put up with some defects or bear the cost of some repairs themselves because the property represents a good investment.
Having said this, it is conceivable that if presented with the correct information, your solicitor may have advised you and you may have obtained lack of building regulations approval insurance, which may have covered the cost of any rectification. The aim of any award of damages in misrepresentation cases is to put the aggrieved party in the position it would have been in had the misrepresentation not been made. It would be fairly standard practice for a solicitor to advise their client to consider insurance in the event of works being undertaken to a property which required building consent but this was not provided or obtained by the seller. Damages are intended cover the amount that the aggrieved party is out of pocket by. It may therefore be possible to argue that the cost of any rectification works should be met by the seller.
However, every case is very fact specific. What facts in any particular case lend themselves to particular legal principles established in previous case law will differ.
Do feel to get in touch with us if you would like to explore the matter in more detail.
My partner and I purchased our house a couple of years ago and on the property information form the sellers said that they had not undertaken any structural works, and ticked no to any windows or glazed doors being installed during the time they owned the house. We have now started our own extension on the rear of the property only to find the left side of the house was just proper up by a jack and no lintel had ever been installed, similarly on the right hand side where there were patio doors (which neighbours have confirmed they watched the previous owner install) there is no supporting lintel above them either, leaving the whole rear of the house vulnerable, obviously this was not picked up in our survey as it is all encased in the plasterboard, would we have a case that we were mislead?
Thank you for your comment.
It does sound as though there is the prospect of a misrepresentation claim here. You have lost the opportunity to ask for building certificates and the like and as a result, have purchased a property which may be suffering from some structural defects.
However, at the moment, you appear to only have the neighbour’s word that the seller installed the patio doors. We suspect some more investigation and evidence gathering would be required to be able to prove that works were undertaken during their period of ownership and not before this.
If you would like to get in touch to discuss the position further, please feel free to contact us.
Hi,
Looking for some advice in regards to ownership and use of a garage.
We moved into the property 6 years ago with a garage that we assumed was part of our back garden. We have had and still currently use this garage for storage and have maintained it since moving in, as we were given the keys to it.
It has recently come to light that another neighbour across the street actually owns the garage and when checking the land registry it is actually the neighbours garage plot.
I am wondering if you know where we stand in regards to being mislead into believing we owned a/the garage.
Upon looking further into paperwork the estate agents advertised the property with a garage and it was agreed on the seller property information form (ta6) that there was a private garage with the property. Also when viewing the house the owners at the time also used the garage themselves for storage.
The title plans show a garage on the land just not in the position it currently is. We were thinking of selling within the next couple of years but can no longer sell with a garage/land which we thought we had paid for as part of the valuation made in 2014. Are we entitled to make a complaint to the EA in regards to misleading information?
TIA
Hi Carrie,
Many thanks for your comment. It does sound as though this could cause you difficulties.
The amount of time that has gone by might prove to be a problem. Basic limitation periods for misrepresentation claims are six years from the date of the misrepresentation/contract, so you may be out of time to pursue the seller for damages.
What is said in estate agents particulars and discussed during the course of the transaction is not as important as to consider what the contract of sale actually said and how it described the property. The pre-contract documentation and discussions can amount to misrepresentations if they were reckless or fraudulent, but if they were made with an honest belief, then they would not readily lend themselves to a claim for misrepresentation. This is because normally, the Standard Conditions of Sale will apply to residential conveyancing transactions. These specifically exclude things which are said by other parties other than in writing and between the buyer and seller or their respective solicitors.
The property information form will be very relevant and if it describes the property as having a garage when it does not, then, subject to any limitation period, there is likely to be a claim at the very least for innocent misrepresentation. This would potentially entitle you to claim damages based on diminution in value. This is the difference between what you paid for the property at the time and what someone would have paid for the property at the time without a garage.
Depending on how long the previous owner or owners used the garage, provided that this was not pursuant to any sort of agreement with the person that actually owns it, there could be a possible adverse possession claim. This is when someone occupies a property or piece of land, to the exclusion of all others for the required period of time (this is normally 10 years for registered land, which your property sounds as though it is). This might entitle you to apply to be registered as the owner. However, the actual owner might very well have grounds to object to this and would be notified of the application. The historical use of the garage and how the situation came to be what it is would be very important to consider before embarking on this route. Likewise, an approach to the actual owner might be detrimental. An adverse possession application can be defeated by “acknowledging the true owner’s title”. This means that if you accept that the garage is owned by someone else, this could mean that you lose any right to claim adverse possession.
We cannot provide any real advice on whether or not there is a possible professional negligence claim here against either your solicitor or surveyor. It would be necessary to consider what they were instructed to do and the advice they were expected to give. Professional negligence claims can be pursued even if the negligence occurred more than six years ago (up to a maximum of fifteen years). This happens when it is not possible for the person that instructed the professional to have known that there was any negligence and extends the deadline to bring a claim to three years from the date that the aggrieved person became aware of or should have become aware of the negligence. I would add that it would be unusual for a solicitor to undertake any sort of site visit or agree to do anything other than to ask their client to confirm that their understanding of what they were buyer was correct.
The situation may also be a problem for your mortgage provider, if you purchased with the assistance of a mortgage. They leant money against the property based on its value, which must have included the garage. If the lender’s security (the property) is not worth what they were led to believe, issues might arise.
It would be necessary to consider the conveyancing file in detail, to see whether or not there is scope for a claim and who this might be against. Whilst we can obtain your purchase file, you should be aware that a solicitor owns some parts of the file, and this would include copy correspondence with you. It sounds as though you may have done this already, but we would recommend you look for any old correspondence that your solicitor sent you, as copies might not be supplied to you when you ask for the file.
If you would like some assistance in looking into the position, please do feel free to get in touch.