416 thoughts on “My Seller Lied To Me! When Is It Property Misrepresentation?”
I’m currently going through the process of purchasing a property, I went through the process made an offer which was accepted and the paperwork exchanged through solicitors. It come to light after all this that the property had a large fire a year and a half ago and suffered structural damage related to this which has been corrected and signed off. I was not made aware of this by the agent at all even after asking the question “why are they selling the property” and made a clear point of them owning it for around 10 years and doing a full refurb (roof, re-wire, new kitchen and bathroom, plastered, new carpets etc) to then just sell it. At this point the agent who was fully aware of the fire and structural damage that had happened to the property as the property was in fact previously on their books when the fire happened replied “the seller has met someone and is moving out of the area” no mention whatsoever of any fire or damages to the property. I feel that I’ve made an offer now on false pretences thinking I was buying a perfect house, when although it looks that way their could be a whole heap of hidden issues due to the 1000s of gallons of water pumped into the house by firefighters as well as other damages created by the fire itself. I am now in the process of having to pay for an additional buildings surveyor to go through the place with a fine tooth comb!! Is this something they are legally obliged to disclose to me or is it more just morally wrong that they didn’t????
We are hesitant to suggest that there is a misrepresentation claim here. The basic position is that the seller does not legally have to volunteer any information about the property. Sometimes allowing the aggrieved party to proceed under a misapprehension or on the basis of a half-truth, in this case the reason for selling (which of course may be true) can amount to a misrepresentation but it is rarely clear cut. As for the cost of the surveyor, it is unlikely that this would be recoverable as a result.
Further, on exchange of contracts, normally the terms of the contract state that the buyer is purchasing the property in the condition it is in on exchange. A buyer should take all necessary steps to satisfy themselves as to what they are buying before exchange of contracts.
Having said this, if there was a fire, you would expect a property owner to claim against their buildings insurance. If the newest edition of the Seller’s Property Information Form (TA6) was used, there is a question contained within it about whether or not the seller has made any claims against their insurance. If this is ticked “no” then there could be a better prospect of a claim on the basis that had you been aware of the claim, you would have been able to make further enquiries and decide whether to proceed or not. However, as you were not made aware and exchanged contracts, you have had to instruct a surveyor as you are committed to the purchase. We are not aware of any specific cases on this point, so cannot say with any certainty whether the argument may be successful, however, it may be of assistance in negotiating prior to completion.
Hi Hope you can help me. I recently purchased a property Ground floor and basement flat , On the TA6 FORM the seller stated property did not suffer from any flooding . Seems this is a lie as i was informed by neighbours and cleaner who worked for seller , that property has flooded in the past year 3-4 times. Seems that the drain cannot cope at certain times during heavy rainfall. So the drain overflows and water manages to come into the basement area, which is the Kitchen / diner lounge combined. I was planning on a new kitchen , however don’t want to do this as water could damage the new kitchen
Where do i stand , do i contact seller directly, as if i had been aware i would either reduced my offer or not continued with sale regards Patrick
Thank you for your comment and we are sorry to hear of the situation.
In short, there probably is a claim for misrepresentation here. If there has been historical flooding but the seller expressly stated “no” to this question on the property information form, then this will more than likely amount to a misrepresentation. We are unable to provide anything more specific without considering the papers in more detail, however. There could be something in the paperwork which adversely affects your claim or might represent a risk, such as searches or a survey which reveals the potential for flooding.
You are also correct to identify that your damages are probably likely to be calculated based on diminution in value; what someone would have paid for the property knowing about the issue and what you would have paid.
If you would like to explore the matter in more detail, please feel free to get in touch.
I put a reservation fee on an off-plan new build in January 2018 with the developer Scarborough Group. At this time it was made aware that their would be a concierge within the development. I completed the purchase of the apartment on October 10th 2018 and at this point I received a handover document stating concierge services 15 times.
Two years on the freehold of the estate has been sold of to ‘Get Living’ who have taken over two buildings within the development suite and the management suite in my building which was where the concierge was supposed to be. After now speaking with the Management company ‘Savills’ it has been made clear we will not be getting a concierge, but a parcel room whereby we can pick up parcels when delivered. He also mentioned that he had to advise to Savills to take any mention of concierge services of the handover document which has now been done.
As a concierge is now a highly common service within Manchester apartment developments, this has now created an issue in residents like myself renting/selling our apartments, with estate agents making it aware this has devalued/made the property less desirable.
I want to know what my legal stance on this and whether this can be deemed as misrepresentation when purchasing the apartment. This has not only happened to myself but at least 20 other residents within the development.
Whether or not there is a misrepresentation will depend on what was agreed contractually about representations made during the pre-contract stage (i.e. what representations would be excluded), along with how those representations were made and how specific they were.
The property would have been sold subject to the terms of the lease and this will be relevant to the position as to whether or not there is an obligation on the freehold owner to provide such a service. If there is such an obligation, then there would probably not be a misrepresentation, as the property was sold with this service and as a leasehold, have the right to demand it. If the lease does not contain this obligation on the freeholder, whether or not the “truth” can be discovered from a review of a particular document is not always fatal to a claim for misrepresentation.
In Part 2: other particulars, it says the following:
Common Parts: all parts of the Building and the Estate which at any time during the Term do not form part of the Property or of any other premises within the Estate let or intended to be let to any other tenant of the Estate including: (a) the main ceilings, main floors and floor slabs, main walls, structural steelwork, structural and main columns, beams and joists and all other structural parts of the Building including all external windows (but not the glass) window furniture (including the gaskets between glass), doors, door frames and door furniture forming part of the Building (but not the front door of the Property its door frame and door furniture or the internal frame and internal handle of external windows of the Property); (b) all internal walls, whether load-bearing or not, inside the Common Parts or separating the Common Parts from the Property or any other premises in the Building let or intended to be let to any other tenant in the Building and all windows and doors and window and door frames in those walls; (c) all entranceways, concierge, hallways, balconies, passageways, lifts, and all Service Installations other than those demised to the Tenant or any other tenant in the Building; (d) any central heating, air handling or air conditioning system and radiators, boilers, ducts, pumps, coolers, controls and other equipment (including all associated Service Installations) which serve the Building as a whole or any parts of it communally; (e) any video, monitoring, security, control, access, fire detection, fire prevention or sprinkler system, and any other electrical or other systems of any type (including all associated Service Installations) which serve the Building as a whole or any parts of it or of the Estate communally; (f) any bin store, bicycle stores, concierge suite, landscaped areas, driveways, estate roads, covered ways, pedestrian accessways and areas, loading areas, courtyards, footpaths, forecourts, refuse collection and disposal areas, garden verges and private street lighting within the Estate, and all gates, gate posts, boundary walls.
As you can see in (c) and (f) it states concierge, however doesn’t go into the service any further within my lease.
As stated previously, I have been told that we will not be getting a conciege due to lack of space in the building, after they sold what was meant to be the concierge suite to ‘get living’ (the new freeholder of the estate).
Thank you for your further comment. This is not really the forum where we are able to provide specific legal advice. We are only able to provide general guidance which shouldn’t be considered a substitute for bespoke and more fully considered legal advice.
The definition you have provided from the lease appears to deal only with the physical aspects of the common parts of the building. Clearly it envisages a concierge service but the obligation to provide such a service, if any, will be contained elsewhere in the lease. You will likely find these in a schedule to the lease headed “landlord covenants” or similar. It may be the case that there is a management company who is a party to the lease which deals with the provision of such services.
If there is a dispute over what services the landlord or management company should be providing, this can ultimately be decided by the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber – Residential Property). It would be important to attempt to resolve the dispute before taking this step, however.
As for a misrepresentation, there may be a potential claim and your loss would most likely be the difference in what you paid for the property and what it was worth had it been known that a concierge service was not to be provided. It would be necessary to obtain valuation evidence of this. At a basic level, if you were led to believe that a concierge service would be provided when in fact this was not the case, and you relied on this when entering into the contract then there may be a claim.
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.
I’m currently going through the process of purchasing a property, I went through the process made an offer which was accepted and the paperwork exchanged through solicitors. It come to light after all this that the property had a large fire a year and a half ago and suffered structural damage related to this which has been corrected and signed off. I was not made aware of this by the agent at all even after asking the question “why are they selling the property” and made a clear point of them owning it for around 10 years and doing a full refurb (roof, re-wire, new kitchen and bathroom, plastered, new carpets etc) to then just sell it. At this point the agent who was fully aware of the fire and structural damage that had happened to the property as the property was in fact previously on their books when the fire happened replied “the seller has met someone and is moving out of the area” no mention whatsoever of any fire or damages to the property. I feel that I’ve made an offer now on false pretences thinking I was buying a perfect house, when although it looks that way their could be a whole heap of hidden issues due to the 1000s of gallons of water pumped into the house by firefighters as well as other damages created by the fire itself. I am now in the process of having to pay for an additional buildings surveyor to go through the place with a fine tooth comb!! Is this something they are legally obliged to disclose to me or is it more just morally wrong that they didn’t????
Thank you for your comment.
We are hesitant to suggest that there is a misrepresentation claim here. The basic position is that the seller does not legally have to volunteer any information about the property. Sometimes allowing the aggrieved party to proceed under a misapprehension or on the basis of a half-truth, in this case the reason for selling (which of course may be true) can amount to a misrepresentation but it is rarely clear cut. As for the cost of the surveyor, it is unlikely that this would be recoverable as a result.
Further, on exchange of contracts, normally the terms of the contract state that the buyer is purchasing the property in the condition it is in on exchange. A buyer should take all necessary steps to satisfy themselves as to what they are buying before exchange of contracts.
Having said this, if there was a fire, you would expect a property owner to claim against their buildings insurance. If the newest edition of the Seller’s Property Information Form (TA6) was used, there is a question contained within it about whether or not the seller has made any claims against their insurance. If this is ticked “no” then there could be a better prospect of a claim on the basis that had you been aware of the claim, you would have been able to make further enquiries and decide whether to proceed or not. However, as you were not made aware and exchanged contracts, you have had to instruct a surveyor as you are committed to the purchase. We are not aware of any specific cases on this point, so cannot say with any certainty whether the argument may be successful, however, it may be of assistance in negotiating prior to completion.
Hi Hope you can help me.
I recently purchased a property Ground floor and basement flat , On the TA6 FORM the seller stated property did not suffer from any flooding .
Seems this is a lie as i was informed by neighbours and cleaner who worked for seller , that property has flooded in the past year 3-4 times.
Seems that the drain cannot cope at certain times during heavy rainfall. So the drain overflows and water manages to come into the basement area, which is the Kitchen / diner lounge combined.
I was planning on a new kitchen , however don’t want to do this as water could damage the new kitchen
Where do i stand , do i contact seller directly, as if i had been aware i would either reduced my offer or not continued with sale
regards
Patrick
Thank you for your comment and we are sorry to hear of the situation.
In short, there probably is a claim for misrepresentation here. If there has been historical flooding but the seller expressly stated “no” to this question on the property information form, then this will more than likely amount to a misrepresentation. We are unable to provide anything more specific without considering the papers in more detail, however. There could be something in the paperwork which adversely affects your claim or might represent a risk, such as searches or a survey which reveals the potential for flooding.
You are also correct to identify that your damages are probably likely to be calculated based on diminution in value; what someone would have paid for the property knowing about the issue and what you would have paid.
If you would like to explore the matter in more detail, please feel free to get in touch.
Good afternoon,
I put a reservation fee on an off-plan new build in January 2018 with the developer Scarborough Group. At this time it was made aware that their would be a concierge within the development. I completed the purchase of the apartment on October 10th 2018 and at this point I received a handover document stating concierge services 15 times.
Two years on the freehold of the estate has been sold of to ‘Get Living’ who have taken over two buildings within the development suite and the management suite in my building which was where the concierge was supposed to be. After now speaking with the Management company ‘Savills’ it has been made clear we will not be getting a concierge, but a parcel room whereby we can pick up parcels when delivered. He also mentioned that he had to advise to Savills to take any mention of concierge services of the handover document which has now been done.
As a concierge is now a highly common service within Manchester apartment developments, this has now created an issue in residents like myself renting/selling our apartments, with estate agents making it aware this has devalued/made the property less desirable.
I want to know what my legal stance on this and whether this can be deemed as misrepresentation when purchasing the apartment. This has not only happened to myself but at least 20 other residents within the development.
Kind Regards,
Peter Bowling
Thank you for your comment.
Whether or not there is a misrepresentation will depend on what was agreed contractually about representations made during the pre-contract stage (i.e. what representations would be excluded), along with how those representations were made and how specific they were.
The property would have been sold subject to the terms of the lease and this will be relevant to the position as to whether or not there is an obligation on the freehold owner to provide such a service. If there is such an obligation, then there would probably not be a misrepresentation, as the property was sold with this service and as a leasehold, have the right to demand it. If the lease does not contain this obligation on the freeholder, whether or not the “truth” can be discovered from a review of a particular document is not always fatal to a claim for misrepresentation.
Thanks for coming back to me.
In Part 2: other particulars, it says the following:
Common Parts: all parts of the Building and the Estate which at any time during the Term do
not form part of the Property or of any other premises within the Estate let or intended to
be let to any other tenant of the Estate including:
(a) the main ceilings, main floors and floor slabs, main walls, structural steelwork,
structural and main columns, beams and joists and all other structural parts of the
Building including all external windows (but not the glass) window furniture (including
the gaskets between glass), doors, door frames and door furniture forming part of the
Building (but not the front door of the Property its door frame and door furniture or
the internal frame and internal handle of external windows of the Property);
(b) all internal walls, whether load-bearing or not, inside the Common Parts or
separating the Common Parts from the Property or any other premises in the Building
let or intended to be let to any other tenant in the Building and all windows and
doors and window and door frames in those walls;
(c) all entranceways, concierge, hallways, balconies, passageways, lifts, and all Service
Installations other than those demised to the Tenant or any other tenant in the
Building;
(d) any central heating, air handling or air conditioning system and radiators, boilers,
ducts, pumps, coolers, controls and other equipment (including all associated
Service Installations) which serve the Building as a whole or any parts of it
communally;
(e) any video, monitoring, security, control, access, fire detection, fire prevention
or sprinkler system, and any other electrical or other systems of any type (including
all associated Service Installations) which serve the Building as a whole or any parts of
it or of the Estate communally;
(f) any bin store, bicycle stores, concierge suite, landscaped areas, driveways, estate
roads, covered ways, pedestrian accessways and areas, loading areas, courtyards,
footpaths, forecourts, refuse collection and disposal areas, garden verges and private
street lighting within the Estate, and all gates, gate posts, boundary walls.
As you can see in (c) and (f) it states concierge, however doesn’t go into the service any further within my lease.
As stated previously, I have been told that we will not be getting a conciege due to lack of space in the building, after they sold what was meant to be the concierge suite to ‘get living’ (the new freeholder of the estate).
Can you advise further?
Thank you for your further comment. This is not really the forum where we are able to provide specific legal advice. We are only able to provide general guidance which shouldn’t be considered a substitute for bespoke and more fully considered legal advice.
The definition you have provided from the lease appears to deal only with the physical aspects of the common parts of the building. Clearly it envisages a concierge service but the obligation to provide such a service, if any, will be contained elsewhere in the lease. You will likely find these in a schedule to the lease headed “landlord covenants” or similar. It may be the case that there is a management company who is a party to the lease which deals with the provision of such services.
If there is a dispute over what services the landlord or management company should be providing, this can ultimately be decided by the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber – Residential Property). It would be important to attempt to resolve the dispute before taking this step, however.
As for a misrepresentation, there may be a potential claim and your loss would most likely be the difference in what you paid for the property and what it was worth had it been known that a concierge service was not to be provided. It would be necessary to obtain valuation evidence of this. At a basic level, if you were led to believe that a concierge service would be provided when in fact this was not the case, and you relied on this when entering into the contract then there may be a claim.