416 thoughts on “My Seller Lied To Me! When Is It Property Misrepresentation?”
We purchased a house and the vendor ticked that the electrics had been checked by a qualified electrician and the documents were to follow. These have never materialised and since moving in we have found them to be unsafe. What redress if any are we due?
Thank you for your comment. It would all depend on exactly what was asked in the Property Information Form and how the seller subsequently answered it. From what you have informed me, though, the seller may say that it was true that the electrics had been checked by a qualified electrician but he never represented to you that they were safe. It would also depend on whether the contract contains any non-reliance or other clause that may affect your right to claim against the seller.
Hi, Just before the exchange we found our that a major work is planned to be carried out in the next door neighbor (excavation for basement, demolition, etc. – roughly 1-2 years work). In the PIF form, the sellers answered no to knowing anything about work in the nearby property. After pressed by our solicitor, they claimed to forget about it despite having letters sent by the council to them a few months ago (claimed not to receive), a party wall email from their neighbors weeks before (albeit after the PIF was signed), and they did not proactively notify me when work has begun which was clearly visible to them. Could this count as fraudulent misrepresentation and what sort of compensation am i entitled to?
It appears that you are referring to Question 3 in the Law Society’s standard Property Information Form (4th Edition 2020 – second revision) (the TA6). This question is headed “Notices and proposals” and asks:-
“Have any notices or correspondence been received or sent (e.g. from or to a neighbour, council or government department), or any negotiations or discussions taken place, which affect the property or a property nearby? If Yes, please give details:”
If notices or correspondence had been received by your seller which had the prospect of affecting the property or the neighbouring property and the answer given was “no” then there may be a claim for misrepresentation. It is obviously in the seller’s interest to argue that they did not receive the Council notices. It would be a matter of evidence and ultimately, who the Court believed, as to whether or not the notices were received.
As for the Party Wall Act notice, this is required when some excavations are taking place in an adjoining property. It is noted that the notice was received after the property information form was signed. Whether or not there is a duty to update a buyer is arguable. Having said this, the TA6 specifically states in the instructions to the seller:-
“If you later become aware of any information which would alter any replies you have given, you must inform your solicitor immediately. This is as important as giving the right answers in the first place. Do not change any arrangements concerning the property with anyone (such as a tenant or neighbour) without first consulting your solicitor.”
In theory, the seller should have sought advice from their solicitor and their solicitor should, subject to the terms of any retainer with their client, have advised their client on the need to update the information in the property information form so as to ensure that it was accurate.
In any event, if it can be proven that the Party Wall Act notice was received, then there may be scope for a misrepresentation claim. In some circumstances, allowing a buyer to proceed under a misapprehension that the seller knows about (in this case, that there were no works proposed by the neighbour), can give rise to an actionable misrepresentation.
As for damages, the normal measure of damages is based on diminution in value. This is the difference in price paid for the property and what a reasonable person would have paid for the property had the issue been known about. Normally some indication of this figure would be required from a valuation expert.
Your client bought a house and soon discovered that the roof leaked. The seller had not made any statement to your client about the roof, but your client believes the seller knew about the problem. Up until now, your jurisdiction has not required a seller to tell a buyer about problems like this roof, so long as the seller makes no affirmative statement about the quality of the roof. You want to argue that your jurisdiction should impose a duty on sellers to disclose significant defects of which they are aware. Write a paragraph using principle-based reasoning to argue in favor of this change in the law. You can consider principles like honesty and fairness.
Thank you for this. While your comment raises an interesting theoretical and philosophical question, this is not really something that we would as practitioners be involved with, as this type of issue is more of an academic rather than a practical legal one, and as such a writer or academic in jurisprudence may be better placed to assist you.
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.
We purchased a house and the vendor ticked that the electrics had been checked by a qualified electrician and the documents were to follow. These have never materialised and since moving in we have found them to be unsafe. What redress if any are we due?
Thank you for your comment. It would all depend on exactly what was asked in the Property Information Form and how the seller subsequently answered it. From what you have informed me, though, the seller may say that it was true that the electrics had been checked by a qualified electrician but he never represented to you that they were safe. It would also depend on whether the contract contains any non-reliance or other clause that may affect your right to claim against the seller.
If you wish we can have a confidential discussion if you ring our litigation team at the Braintree office.
Hi,
Just before the exchange we found our that a major work is planned to be carried out in the next door neighbor (excavation for basement, demolition, etc. – roughly 1-2 years work). In the PIF form, the sellers answered no to knowing anything about work in the nearby property. After pressed by our solicitor, they claimed to forget about it despite having letters sent by the council to them a few months ago (claimed not to receive), a party wall email from their neighbors weeks before (albeit after the PIF was signed), and they did not proactively notify me when work has begun which was clearly visible to them.
Could this count as fraudulent misrepresentation and what sort of compensation am i entitled to?
Thank you for your comment.
It appears that you are referring to Question 3 in the Law Society’s standard Property Information Form (4th Edition 2020 – second revision) (the TA6). This question is headed “Notices and proposals” and asks:-
“Have any notices or correspondence been received or sent (e.g. from or to a neighbour, council or government department), or any negotiations or discussions taken place, which affect the property or a property nearby? If Yes, please give details:”
If notices or correspondence had been received by your seller which had the prospect of affecting the property or the neighbouring property and the answer given was “no” then there may be a claim for misrepresentation. It is obviously in the seller’s interest to argue that they did not receive the Council notices. It would be a matter of evidence and ultimately, who the Court believed, as to whether or not the notices were received.
As for the Party Wall Act notice, this is required when some excavations are taking place in an adjoining property. It is noted that the notice was received after the property information form was signed. Whether or not there is a duty to update a buyer is arguable. Having said this, the TA6 specifically states in the instructions to the seller:-
“If you later become aware of any information which would alter any replies you have given, you must inform your solicitor immediately. This is as important as giving the right answers in the first place. Do not change any arrangements concerning the property with anyone (such as a tenant or neighbour) without first consulting your solicitor.”
In theory, the seller should have sought advice from their solicitor and their solicitor should, subject to the terms of any retainer with their client, have advised their client on the need to update the information in the property information form so as to ensure that it was accurate.
In any event, if it can be proven that the Party Wall Act notice was received, then there may be scope for a misrepresentation claim. In some circumstances, allowing a buyer to proceed under a misapprehension that the seller knows about (in this case, that there were no works proposed by the neighbour), can give rise to an actionable misrepresentation.
As for damages, the normal measure of damages is based on diminution in value. This is the difference in price paid for the property and what a reasonable person would have paid for the property had the issue been known about. Normally some indication of this figure would be required from a valuation expert.
Your client bought a house and soon discovered that the roof leaked. The seller had not made any statement to your client about the roof, but your client believes the seller knew about the problem. Up until now, your jurisdiction has not required a seller to tell a buyer about problems like this roof, so long as the seller makes no affirmative statement about the quality of the roof. You want to argue that your jurisdiction should impose a duty on sellers to disclose significant defects of which they are aware. Write a paragraph using principle-based reasoning to argue in favor of this change in the law. You can consider principles like honesty and fairness.
Thank you for this. While your comment raises an interesting theoretical and philosophical question, this is not really something that we would as practitioners be involved with, as this type of issue is more of an academic rather than a practical legal one, and as such a writer or academic in jurisprudence may be better placed to assist you.