416 thoughts on “My Seller Lied To Me! When Is It Property Misrepresentation?”
Hi we bought our house 2 weeks ago. The very next day our neighbours told us that the property had been flooded by escape of water. They had left the tap on and went on holiday resulting in the flood. They had renovated the house before we bought it. We was never aware of the flood. My question is can this cause subsidence and will I be able to make a claim against them from hiding this.
We are not surveyors or structural engineers and can therefore not provide any input on what does or does not cause subsidence.
Having said this, having dealt with subsidence and heave cases in the past, expert reports will generally indicate that subsidence (a sinking movement) or heave (an upward movement) generally arises as a result of the water content in the soil. Excessive moisture content and desiccation are both factors which seem to cause such issues. These often are as a result of tree roots or poor construction generally.
As mentioned, we cannot provide any sort of advice, general or otherwise, as to whether or not a flood can cause subsidence and you should consult a suitably qualified structural engineer if this is something that you require clarification on.
Sir A local builder refurbished a property and then sold it off as four apartments , the estate agent stated that the property had a new roof. This was not the case as after inspection it is approx 30 years old, the young couple who bought the top apartment have water coming through the roof and we also understand that it is also coming down through the chimney which has not been capped. We have tried to contact the seller who ignores our letters and phone calls, and the estate agent will not admit liability but sent us a letter saying that we could write to him under the In House Complaints Procedure, What!! should we do.
We are unsure whether or not there could be any misrepresentation claim here on the basis of what an estate agent has said. It is possible, but Standard Condition 3.2 of the Standard Conditions of sale which are almost always incorporated into a contract for the sale of a property specifies that the buyer accepts the property in the condition and physical state that it is in as at the date of the contract (i.e. exchange of contracts).
It may be the case that there is a claim under Section 1(1) of the Defective Premises Act 1972. This specifies that a person taking on work for or in connection with the provision of a dwelling (and this can be by the conversion or enlargement of a building, as appears to have happened in this matter), the person undertaking that work has a duty to every person that acquires an interest in the property to ensure that the work is undertaken in a workmanlike and professional manner. As there are now 4 apartments in this particular building, it is likely to involve a leasehold title. Such a claim may therefore vest in the freeholder depending on who is responsible for the roof.
We recently purchased a house and moved in to find they must had removed a fitted wardrobe at an earlier date. This was hidden behind the wardrobe they took with them and there were hanging unsafe electrics (in boxes only suitable for being inset behind plaster) missing plaster on the wall and missing carpet. They are now saying it was like this when they bought the property. We had enquired via solicitors whether there was a hardwiring Ethernet cable to the external home office. They had confirmed this but we arrived to find there was just a BT point and all the electrics are damaged from water ingress as a result of poor external wiring allowing water to drain down the wires.
They left rubbish at the property including a mouldy 6ft bean bag, broken 8ft basketball net and other rubbish at the property – they have acknowledged as an ‘oversight’?!
There were other repairs – leaking radiator, Hob ignition and insinkerator broken. They have said this was the case when they purchased.
They have refused to give passwords for the CCTV, now claiming they have never used it, despite the seller verbally confirming she had it on her phone and giving us her builders details to get the password.
The Standard Conditions of Sale, which are almost invariably incorporated into the sale of residential property, specify at clause 3.2 that the buyer accepts the property in the physical state that it is in as at the date of the contract (i.e. exchange).
Unless the seller says something specific which is misleading, there is generally no claim. It is down to the buyer to undertake whatever enquiries they wish to satisfy themselves before committing to the purchase. The seller is under no obligation to respond to these enquiries and in such circumstances it would be up to the buyer to decide whether or not to take the risk.
Thanks for your advice. Looking at the Fixtures and Fittings forms they said the wardrobe in the bedroom was included but then sold it before the exchange.
They are claiming that the damaged wall and dangerous electrics which were found on completion day had been like this for years (they removed a fitted wardrobe and didn’t make good) so they were only uncovered when their large wardrobe was removed by them on departure.
They are also claiming they had the electrics to the home office checked before the sale and they were fine at the time. They have been ripped out of the cable tidies and water has travelled into the electric sockets.
It was really painful to get any paperwork during the sale so we understand why now.
I assume we can claim for clearing the property of their items which they have accepted they left behind as an ‘oversight’!
Thank you for your further comment. We cannot really provide specific advice on our website.
Broadly, however, if certain items were said to be included in the sale and you paid for these, then there is a potential breach of contract claim.
As for the cost of removing items and rubbish, normally there would be a representation in the form of an answer to the property information form that the property would be left in a clean and tidy state. If this was not the case, then there may be a claim for misrepresentation here. Likewise, there is also a question that the seller is asked in the property information form as to whether or not they will take care in removing any fixtures or fittings not included in the sale.
Whether or not there is anything to be done about the electrics is going to be highly fact-specific, which again is one of the reasons why we cannot provide anything more than general guidance on our website which should not be considered a substitute for properly considered legal advice.
The standard conditions of sale would normally include a special condition as follows “Representations – Neither party can rely on any representation made by the other, unless made in writing by the other or his conveyancer, but this does not exclude liability for fraud or recklessness.”
A misrepresentation can be innocent (i.e. the seller believed what they were saying), reckless (i.e. a seller didn’t care or check before making the representation) or fraudulent (i.e. the seller knew that what was being said was untrue). The burden of proof on a claimant in relation to a claim for reckless and fraudulent misrepresentation can be considered higher and therefore harder to prove, as it involves establishing a state of mind when the representation was made. We mention this because if you were expressly told that the electrics had been checked and they were fine. If it can demonstrably be shown that this representation was reckless or fraudulent, there may be a claim for reckless or fraudulent misrepresentation, even if the statement was not made in writing, which the above special condition would normally exclude from being actionable.
If you would like to consider the matter further, 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.
Hi we bought our house 2 weeks ago. The very next day our neighbours told us that the property had been flooded by escape of water. They had left the tap on and went on holiday resulting in the flood. They had renovated the house before we bought it. We was never aware of the flood. My question is can this cause subsidence and will I be able to make a claim against them from hiding this.
Thank you for your comment.
We are not surveyors or structural engineers and can therefore not provide any input on what does or does not cause subsidence.
Having said this, having dealt with subsidence and heave cases in the past, expert reports will generally indicate that subsidence (a sinking movement) or heave (an upward movement) generally arises as a result of the water content in the soil. Excessive moisture content and desiccation are both factors which seem to cause such issues. These often are as a result of tree roots or poor construction generally.
As mentioned, we cannot provide any sort of advice, general or otherwise, as to whether or not a flood can cause subsidence and you should consult a suitably qualified structural engineer if this is something that you require clarification on.
Sir A local builder refurbished a property and then sold it off as four apartments , the estate agent stated
that the property had a new roof. This was not the case as after inspection it is approx 30 years old, the
young couple who bought the top apartment have water coming through the roof and we also understand that it is also coming down through the chimney which has not been capped. We have tried to contact the seller who ignores our letters and phone calls, and the estate agent will not admit liability but sent us a letter saying that we could write to him under the In House Complaints Procedure, What!! should we do.
Thank you for your comment.
We are unsure whether or not there could be any misrepresentation claim here on the basis of what an estate agent has said. It is possible, but Standard Condition 3.2 of the Standard Conditions of sale which are almost always incorporated into a contract for the sale of a property specifies that the buyer accepts the property in the condition and physical state that it is in as at the date of the contract (i.e. exchange of contracts).
It may be the case that there is a claim under Section 1(1) of the Defective Premises Act 1972. This specifies that a person taking on work for or in connection with the provision of a dwelling (and this can be by the conversion or enlargement of a building, as appears to have happened in this matter), the person undertaking that work has a duty to every person that acquires an interest in the property to ensure that the work is undertaken in a workmanlike and professional manner. As there are now 4 apartments in this particular building, it is likely to involve a leasehold title. Such a claim may therefore vest in the freeholder depending on who is responsible for the roof.
We recently purchased a house and moved in to find they must had removed a fitted wardrobe at an earlier date. This was hidden behind the wardrobe they took with them and there were hanging unsafe electrics (in boxes only suitable for being inset behind plaster) missing plaster on the wall and missing carpet. They are now saying it was like this when they bought the property.
We had enquired via solicitors whether there was a hardwiring Ethernet cable to the external home office. They had confirmed this but we arrived to find there was just a BT point and all the electrics are damaged from water ingress as a result of poor external wiring allowing water to drain down the wires.
They left rubbish at the property including a mouldy 6ft bean bag, broken 8ft basketball net and other rubbish at the property – they have acknowledged as an ‘oversight’?!
There were other repairs – leaking radiator, Hob ignition and insinkerator broken. They have said this was the case when they purchased.
They have refused to give passwords for the CCTV, now claiming they have never used it, despite the seller verbally confirming she had it on her phone and giving us her builders details to get the password.
Do you think we have a case to pursue in court?
Thanks
Thank you for your comment.
The Standard Conditions of Sale, which are almost invariably incorporated into the sale of residential property, specify at clause 3.2 that the buyer accepts the property in the physical state that it is in as at the date of the contract (i.e. exchange).
Unless the seller says something specific which is misleading, there is generally no claim. It is down to the buyer to undertake whatever enquiries they wish to satisfy themselves before committing to the purchase. The seller is under no obligation to respond to these enquiries and in such circumstances it would be up to the buyer to decide whether or not to take the risk.
Thanks for your advice. Looking at the Fixtures and Fittings forms they said the wardrobe in the bedroom was included but then sold it before the exchange.
They are claiming that the damaged wall and dangerous electrics which were found on completion day had been like this for years (they removed a fitted wardrobe and didn’t make good) so they were only uncovered when their large wardrobe was removed by them on departure.
They are also claiming they had the electrics to the home office checked before the sale and they were fine at the time. They have been ripped out of the cable tidies and water has travelled into the electric sockets.
It was really painful to get any paperwork during the sale so we understand why now.
I assume we can claim for clearing the property of their items which they have accepted they left behind as an ‘oversight’!
Thanks
Thank you for your further comment. We cannot really provide specific advice on our website.
Broadly, however, if certain items were said to be included in the sale and you paid for these, then there is a potential breach of contract claim.
As for the cost of removing items and rubbish, normally there would be a representation in the form of an answer to the property information form that the property would be left in a clean and tidy state. If this was not the case, then there may be a claim for misrepresentation here. Likewise, there is also a question that the seller is asked in the property information form as to whether or not they will take care in removing any fixtures or fittings not included in the sale.
Whether or not there is anything to be done about the electrics is going to be highly fact-specific, which again is one of the reasons why we cannot provide anything more than general guidance on our website which should not be considered a substitute for properly considered legal advice.
The standard conditions of sale would normally include a special condition as follows “Representations – Neither party can rely on any representation made by the other, unless made in writing by the other or his conveyancer, but this does not exclude liability for fraud or recklessness.”
A misrepresentation can be innocent (i.e. the seller believed what they were saying), reckless (i.e. a seller didn’t care or check before making the representation) or fraudulent (i.e. the seller knew that what was being said was untrue). The burden of proof on a claimant in relation to a claim for reckless and fraudulent misrepresentation can be considered higher and therefore harder to prove, as it involves establishing a state of mind when the representation was made. We mention this because if you were expressly told that the electrics had been checked and they were fine. If it can demonstrably be shown that this representation was reckless or fraudulent, there may be a claim for reckless or fraudulent misrepresentation, even if the statement was not made in writing, which the above special condition would normally exclude from being actionable.
If you would like to consider the matter further, please do feel free to get in touch.