416 thoughts on “My Seller Lied To Me! When Is It Property Misrepresentation?”
Hi. We recently purchased a property from Berkeley homes (new build). During the buying process, I questioned them about the parking situation on the roads (as cars were always parked there during our visits to view the property), they always assured me that they were visitor spaces, 48 max stay and not for residents. We also had to sign a property map with our solicitor, which outlined our plot, land and clearly shows the parking spaces as visitor. I was even told this would be managed by a 3rd party to enforce the policy. I moved in 3 months ago and I have complained several times to Berkeley as the cars are parked there 24/7. Basically, the neighbours use them as their second parking space. Berkeley are now refusing to enforce this policy as they don’t want to upset the neighbours who are using them as a second space. Is there a claim here? I feel there must be as everyone on the street signed a legal document stating they would not use the spaces and that they’re visitor spaces.
Thank you for your comment regarding parking rights. This doesn’t sound, from what you have posted, like a misrepresentation so much as a potential breach by the neighbouring occupants of your rights, which is also something we may be able to assist you with. However to properly determine this we would need to see what exactly the property map and titles or other deeds say. Whether the claim is against Berkeley Homes or the neighbour who is parking incorrectly will also depend on those documents, and their contents.
If you contact our Litigation team at the Braintree office we may be able to have a confidential discussion with you about this.
Moved into a new house with a septic tank in December 2020. Got someone in to empty it who was familiar with the property having emptied it over a number of years for the vendors. He has made us aware the tank has not only collapsed but will need completely replacing to meet new industry guidance introduced in 2020. He told the vendors this years ago, which they ignored. And when asked specifically by us if the tank was in good working order, the vendors told us it was absolutely fine and no issues. Even though neighbours have seen them draining the tank themselves into a nearby ditch – for years! We obviously have only just found this out.
The problem is however they have moved to India! BUT on reviewing, the searches that our conveyancer issued were actually carried out on the wrong piece of land! Not the actual property, but adjoining driveway. One of these searches was the water and drainage report. Surely there is blame here on the solicitors too?? Not only have we been blatantly deceived by the vendors, but the solicitors failed to protect us by excluding the tank in the survey. Do you think we have claim here?? Thank you
Thank you for your comment and we are sorry to hear of these circumstances.
As for a claim against the sellers, this can still be pursued but you would need permission from the Court to serve the claim out of the jurisdiction. This process would add to the cost of the claim. The practical consequence of the sellers (or more specifically any assets belonging to the sellers) being out of the jurisdiction is that enforcing any judgment might prove difficult. We are unable to advise on the law of India, so you would need to obtain legal advice on enforcement from a lawyer who is qualified in this jurisdiction.
As for a claim against your solicitors, what the solicitors were obliged to advise you of would start with a review of their retainer letter (which sets out what they were going to do). Whether or not they were under any express or implied obligation to point out issues with the septic tank will very much depend on this. Normally it would be for a buyer to instruct their surveyor to check the condition of any building or structure. A water and drainage report would also be unlikely to reveal any matters beyond stating that the property was not connected to mains sewage.
We are not sure what you mean about excluding the septic tank from the survey. It would not normally be for a solicitor to instruct a surveyor but if for some reason they took this duty upon themselves and but for their conduct in identifying the incorrect piece of land the issue would have been discovered, then there may be a professional negligence claim. However, we are hesitant to suggest this as this would be unusual.
Thank you for your reply Reference Paul Greening March 10th 2021. From what you say we may well be responsible for the roof for the following reason. A builder bought an old Georgian house and converted it into 4 luxury apartments, when each person bought one he said that he was the freeholder and would charge us a small annual ground rent, set up a management company, and be responsible for repairs etc and painting the outside of the building which obviously we would have to contribute too through the management funds. He did not keep to his word, when the last flat was sold No4 to a young couple, who found water coming through the roof, even though he sold it through an estate agent stating that it had a brand new roof, after inspection it was found that the roof had not been repaired for at least 30 years, he then transferred the Freehold to the residents . We wrote to him and phoned him but he ignores all our letters and phone calls. The question i ask regarding your kind reply, as the freeholders now, are we responsible, or do we have some kind of redress.
Thank you for your further comment. Unfortunately we cannot give advice on this website which is specific and this is mainly because we have not considered the relevant documentation and cannot be sure that it would be accurate.
There still may be redress under the Defective Premises Act 1972, but this would be a point we would need to check against the relevant documentation and in the context of the matter generally.
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 recently purchased a property from Berkeley homes (new build). During the buying process, I questioned them about the parking situation on the roads (as cars were always parked there during our visits to view the property), they always assured me that they were visitor spaces, 48 max stay and not for residents. We also had to sign a property map with our solicitor, which outlined our plot, land and clearly shows the parking spaces as visitor. I was even told this would be managed by a 3rd party to enforce the policy. I moved in 3 months ago and I have complained several times to Berkeley as the cars are parked there 24/7. Basically, the neighbours use them as their second parking space. Berkeley are now refusing to enforce this policy as they don’t want to upset the neighbours who are using them as a second space. Is there a claim here? I feel there must be as everyone on the street signed a legal document stating they would not use the spaces and that they’re visitor spaces.
Thank you for your comment regarding parking rights. This doesn’t sound, from what you have posted, like a misrepresentation so much as a potential breach by the neighbouring occupants of your rights, which is also something we may be able to assist you with. However to properly determine this we would need to see what exactly the property map and titles or other deeds say. Whether the claim is against Berkeley Homes or the neighbour who is parking incorrectly will also depend on those documents, and their contents.
If you contact our Litigation team at the Braintree office we may be able to have a confidential discussion with you about this.
Moved into a new house with a septic tank in December 2020. Got someone in to empty it who was familiar with the property having emptied it over a number of years for the vendors. He has made us aware the tank has not only collapsed but will need completely replacing to meet new industry guidance introduced in 2020. He told the vendors this years ago, which they ignored. And when asked specifically by us if the tank was in good working order, the vendors told us it was absolutely fine and no issues. Even though neighbours have seen them draining the tank themselves into a nearby ditch – for years! We obviously have only just found this out.
The problem is however they have moved to India! BUT on reviewing, the searches that our conveyancer issued were actually carried out on the wrong piece of land! Not the actual property, but adjoining driveway. One of these searches was the water and drainage report. Surely there is blame here on the solicitors too?? Not only have we been blatantly deceived by the vendors, but the solicitors failed to protect us by excluding the tank in the survey. Do you think we have claim here?? Thank you
Thank you for your comment and we are sorry to hear of these circumstances.
As for a claim against the sellers, this can still be pursued but you would need permission from the Court to serve the claim out of the jurisdiction. This process would add to the cost of the claim. The practical consequence of the sellers (or more specifically any assets belonging to the sellers) being out of the jurisdiction is that enforcing any judgment might prove difficult. We are unable to advise on the law of India, so you would need to obtain legal advice on enforcement from a lawyer who is qualified in this jurisdiction.
As for a claim against your solicitors, what the solicitors were obliged to advise you of would start with a review of their retainer letter (which sets out what they were going to do). Whether or not they were under any express or implied obligation to point out issues with the septic tank will very much depend on this. Normally it would be for a buyer to instruct their surveyor to check the condition of any building or structure. A water and drainage report would also be unlikely to reveal any matters beyond stating that the property was not connected to mains sewage.
We are not sure what you mean about excluding the septic tank from the survey. It would not normally be for a solicitor to instruct a surveyor but if for some reason they took this duty upon themselves and but for their conduct in identifying the incorrect piece of land the issue would have been discovered, then there may be a professional negligence claim. However, we are hesitant to suggest this as this would be unusual.
Thank you for your reply Reference Paul Greening March 10th 2021. From what you say we may well be responsible for the roof for the following reason.
A builder bought an old Georgian house and converted it into 4 luxury apartments, when each person bought one he said that he was the freeholder and would charge us a small annual ground rent, set up a management company, and be responsible for repairs etc and painting the outside of the building which obviously we would have to contribute too through the management funds. He did not keep to his word, when the last flat was sold No4 to a young couple, who found water coming through the roof, even though he sold it through an estate agent stating that it had a brand new roof, after inspection it was found that the roof had not been repaired for at least 30 years, he then transferred the Freehold to the residents . We wrote to him and phoned him but he ignores all our letters and phone calls. The question i ask regarding your kind reply, as the freeholders now, are we responsible, or do we have some kind of redress.
Thank you for your further comment. Unfortunately we cannot give advice on this website which is specific and this is mainly because we have not considered the relevant documentation and cannot be sure that it would be accurate.
There still may be redress under the Defective Premises Act 1972, but this would be a point we would need to check against the relevant documentation and in the context of the matter generally.