416 thoughts on “My Seller Lied To Me! When Is It Property Misrepresentation?”
The property I purchased was sold with the understanding that it had tenants and that everything was okay with the property this was confirmed by both clients and solicitor. In essence we completed on Friday last week they refused to give us the keys until Tuesday this week and sent the assured short hold tenant see agreement summary of the six rooms but did not send any of the tenants agreements. also when quizzed a week or so ago in regards to the mortgage I was asked if any thing has changed with the property in regards to the tenancies. I went back to the seller and the response was it was all still tenanted but as it appears today there are no tenants in the property at all. anyway long story short I am needing to get the transaction reversed and claim for costs.
While we cannot give specific advice on this page as we would want to see all the documentation first, there may be some redress here. To succeed in a claim for misrepresentation you have to show that they made a statement to you which you could have reasonable been expected to rely upon and which was false. It would also be important to consider the contract for sale as there may be non-reliance or entire agreement clauses which may have to be considered.
You also would have to be able to point to some loss or damage that you have suffered. In order to determine whether in this case you would be entitled to this we would have to see some sort of evidence as to what you believed you were purchasing and for what reasons. Please feel free to contact our offices if you wish for a discussion in complete confidence.
Hi guys I’ve purchased a flat in a building recently and it has started to leak in one room through a wooden beam in heavy rain The seller has said there was a small leak when they first moved in but this was sorted by replacing some guttering outside which was done by the building owner but it still seems to leak occasionally. There seems to be water staining on the beam that leaked which looks old, but I never had a survey done and never asked any questions directly about leaks, where do i stand in terms of misrepresentation?
We are afraid that we cannot give anything other than general guidance on our website, primarily for the fact that without considering the position in detail with our clients, we cannot give accurate advice.
Normally one can only be liable for misrepresentation when a statement is made that turned out to be false and which you relied upon. Whether they did misrepresent the situation with the leak may depend on the exact wording of the statement on the Property Information Form or wherever else they made it. That it did not suppress the leak entirely is not in and of itself grounds for a claim in misrepresentation. Please feel free to contact us for a confidential discussion if you wish to take this further.
Apologies it was the property information form that didn’t question anything specifically to subsidence. The buyer has not asked any direct question either in relation to subsidence. I agree, if we should be asked directly by either the buyer or surveyor on this matter it is only right to be honestly open. We do have paperwork relating to all correspondence and underpinning work etc. as well as a structural survey undertaken (which had the all clear) at the time we purchased the property.
My question really is, after 35 years surely it wouldn’t be necessary to have to declare any history of subsidence or does this saga never end ?
Thank you for this. We cannot give specific advice over the web without having seen the documentation. However from what you have said whether you do need to disclose it depends upon what effect it is having on the property and whether it is still an issue that is having an actual effect upon the property. Normally the property information form will include a question relating to structural issues. Whether this means you should disclose it depends on how exactly it is worded.
What would be the position where some particular item contained within the property is specifically referred to on the estate agent’s particulars as being included in the sale, but a) the particulars have a clause confirming nothing in them shall be construed as a representation of fact, b) the seller removes the relevant item/property before exchange of contracts and c), the buyers inspected the property between the removal of the items and exchange of contracts, but failed to note the items had been removed?
Thank you for your comment. We suspect that the contractual clauses would take precedence unless it can be show that there was a deliberate or reckless misrepresentation. Much would probably turn on whether or not the items in question could be considered fixtures and fittings or chattels and whether or not a separate sum was agreed for those chattels.
There is a case called Taylor v Hamer [2002] which may be relevant here in terms of principles, although we are not aware of any case which is specific to your circumstances. In that case flagstones forming a fixture of the property were removed before exchange of contracts. The seller was held to be in breach of contract as the flagstones formed part of the property.
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.
The property I purchased was sold with the understanding that it had tenants and that everything was okay with the property this was confirmed by both clients and solicitor. In essence we completed on Friday last week they refused to give us the keys until Tuesday this week and sent the assured short hold tenant see agreement summary of the six rooms but did not send any of the tenants agreements. also when quizzed a week or so ago in regards to the mortgage I was asked if any thing has changed with the property in regards to the tenancies. I went back to the seller and the response was it was all still tenanted but as it appears today there are no tenants in the property at all. anyway long story short I am needing to get the transaction reversed and claim for costs.
While we cannot give specific advice on this page as we would want to see all the documentation first, there may be some redress here. To succeed in a claim for misrepresentation you have to show that they made a statement to you which you could have reasonable been expected to rely upon and which was false. It would also be important to consider the contract for sale as there may be non-reliance or entire agreement clauses which may have to be considered.
You also would have to be able to point to some loss or damage that you have suffered. In order to determine whether in this case you would be entitled to this we would have to see some sort of evidence as to what you believed you were purchasing and for what reasons. Please feel free to contact our offices if you wish for a discussion in complete confidence.
Hi guys
I’ve purchased a flat in a building recently and it has started to leak in one room through a wooden beam in heavy rain
The seller has said there was a small leak when they first moved in but this was sorted by replacing some guttering outside which was done by the building owner but it still seems to leak occasionally. There seems to be water staining on the beam that leaked which looks old, but I never had a survey done and never asked any questions directly about leaks, where do i stand in terms of misrepresentation?
Hello Edward,
We are afraid that we cannot give anything other than general guidance on our website, primarily for the fact that without considering the position in detail with our clients, we cannot give accurate advice.
Normally one can only be liable for misrepresentation when a statement is made that turned out to be false and which you relied upon. Whether they did misrepresent the situation with the leak may depend on the exact wording of the statement on the Property Information Form or wherever else they made it. That it did not suppress the leak entirely is not in and of itself grounds for a claim in misrepresentation. Please feel free to contact us for a confidential discussion if you wish to take this further.
Apologies it was the property information form that didn’t question anything specifically to subsidence. The buyer has not asked any direct question either in relation to subsidence.
I agree, if we should be asked directly by either the buyer or surveyor on this matter it is only right to be honestly open. We do have paperwork relating to all correspondence and underpinning work etc. as well as a structural survey undertaken (which had the all clear) at the time we purchased the property.
My question really is, after 35 years surely it wouldn’t be necessary to have to declare any history of subsidence or does this saga never end ?
Thank you for this. We cannot give specific advice over the web without having seen the documentation. However from what you have said whether you do need to disclose it depends upon what effect it is having on the property and whether it is still an issue that is having an actual effect upon the property. Normally the property information form will include a question relating to structural issues. Whether this means you should disclose it depends on how exactly it is worded.
What would be the position where some particular item contained within the property is specifically referred to on the estate agent’s particulars as being included in the sale, but a) the particulars have a clause confirming nothing in them shall be construed as a representation of fact, b) the seller removes the relevant item/property before exchange of contracts and c), the buyers inspected the property between the removal of the items and exchange of contracts, but failed to note the items had been removed?
Thank you for your comment. We suspect that the contractual clauses would take precedence unless it can be show that there was a deliberate or reckless misrepresentation. Much would probably turn on whether or not the items in question could be considered fixtures and fittings or chattels and whether or not a separate sum was agreed for those chattels.
There is a case called Taylor v Hamer [2002] which may be relevant here in terms of principles, although we are not aware of any case which is specific to your circumstances. In that case flagstones forming a fixture of the property were removed before exchange of contracts. The seller was held to be in breach of contract as the flagstones formed part of the property.