416 thoughts on “My Seller Lied To Me! When Is It Property Misrepresentation?”
Hi Mark
Our seller stated on the Property Information Form that the house had “a drive and parking for several cars”. However there is no dropped kerb across the footway which separates us from the road, and it looks as if the permissions and works needed to correct this would cost several £000s. My understanding is that without these we have no legal right to drive cars across the footway. I suspect this was an honest mistake as the hardstanding in front of the house has clearly been used by cars for many years. But given the inaccurate statement on the PIF, can we claim the cost of the works from the sellers? Or our surveyor (RICS house buyer report) who missed this problem whilst referring to a “drive” in his report?
Thank you for your comment. We are not certain whether or not there is a claim here. It may very well be the case that the driveway can accommodate several cars, but what is left unsaid is whether or not the driveway can physically or legally be used in this way. This is arguably misleading and could give rise to a claim, however we suspect that the matter would turn on “reliance”, which is a constituent element of a misrepresentation claim.
Unless a buyer can say that they relied on what they were told when entering into the contract to purchase the property, they cannot blame the seller if what was said was inaccurate. Put another way and in the simplest of terms, if you specify to a seller of a car that you want a red car and they supply a white car, there would be a potential claim. If you did not specify the colour of the car, there would be no claim if the car you brought was not the desired red colour.
We suspect that you inspected the property before committing to the purchase. Arguably, this could have an impact on the outcome of any claim if a court found that you did not rely on what was said to you because the “truth” regarding the dropped curb had already been discovered by your inspection. Having said this, it is generally not a defence to a misrepresentation claim if the aggrieved party could have discovered the truth if they had looked.
As for your surveyor, whether or not there is claim for professional negligence here will depend on what the surveyor agreed to do. This is normally called the professional’s “retainer”. If you instructed your surveyor to check that the driveway could be used, then there may be a claim if a reasonably competent surveyor would have identified that the dropped curb would have prevented this. Even if it is not specifically agreed in the retainer, if the work is reasonably incidental to what you asked the surveyor to do and a reasonably competent surveyor would have identified the issue, then there may also be a claim.
As for the damages/compensation, this is rarely the cost of undertaking any necessary works. There is some case law which supports claim for damages like this, but the basic position is that the loss will be based on diminution in value, or the difference in what you paid for the property and what it was worth at the time with the problem. This may not be the same as the cost of any works, which is logical to a large degree as the parties may not have known what the cost would be and if, for example, the property would still represent a good investment for someone, that person may be willing to incur the cost of those works themselves to secure the property, rather than seek to negotiate a discount on the purchase price.
We purchased a cottage that was owned by a life time mortgage company. The lady who lived in the cottage had died and so no information was available. We paid for searches to be done and were told it was on mains water with a water meter and mains sewage. I also phoned the water authority to check regarding water and was told the same information as the searches. The house had been empty for approx 2 years and the water/heating system had been drained down so we could not try the system when we were shown round by the state agent. After moving in we discovered there was no mains water and no mains sewerage. The water authority denied responsibility because they said we should have checked which we thought was the point of searches???? We later discovered there was a bore hole which had been installed some years before. After living in the house for a few days we discovered a cess pit in the garden which we were also not informed about. Should the life time mortgage company, as the legal owners have informed us? And are the water authority at fault for giving us false information in the searches?
A water and drainage search would ordinarily reveal if a property was not connected to mains water and drainage. If this is not the case, then it may very well be that there is a basis to bring a claim against the search company.
Much of the time, searches are backed with an insurance policy in case incorrect information appears in them. We have acted in the past for an individual in exactly the same circumstances, namely that the search result inaccurately stated that the property was connected to mains drainage when it was not. The insurers agreed to indemnify our client for the cost of the necessary rectification works.
We would recommend that you check to see whether or not the searches included an insurance policy in the first instance and consider making a claim against that policy. You will need evidence that the search results were inaccurate, so you may need to obtain a report from a suitably qualified individual confirming that, as at the date the search was issued, there was no connection to the mains.
As for any sort of claim against the seller, from what you have written, this appears unlikely. There is no obligation on a seller to provide information regarding a property at all, if they do not want to. However, if information is volunteered, it should be accurately provided. If there are inaccuracies in what has been said, then a potential misrepresentation claim may arise.
It would be uncommon for a seller not to provide a TA6 or similar property information form, even though there is no obligation on a seller to provide it to a buyer. If this was provided, the answers to question 12.4 should be considered. This is the section where the seller is asked to confirm whether or not the property is, to the seller’s knowledge, connected to the mains and surface water drainage.
I purchased a house and exchanged contracts less than a month ago. Our surveyor had highlighted a damp patch in the hallway. The owner had disclosed on the contract they had made an insurance claim to rectify a leak from the upstairs bathroom. After moving in I believe this leak hasn’t been rectified and the details of an insurance claim are false leading to a costly repair, does this count as misrepresentation? Thanks
Thank you for your comment. A misrepresentation is normally any statement which is false and on which you rely and are entitled to rely, and as a result of your reliance on this have suffered a loss or damage. However it is not uncommon for property transactions to limit reliance or include entire agreement clauses which may limit your rights to claim for misrepresentation. As such we would have to see the contract before being able to advise upon this.
If this is something mentioned in the contract, then a failure by them to have rectified the leak may also be a breach of contract on their part, but once again we would need to see the contract in full before we could properly advise you in respect of this. On the other hand, depending on how it is worded it may be that they were only obliged to, or acknowledging that, they have claimed on the insurance to go towards this; it will depend on the exact wording used.
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 Mark
Our seller stated on the Property Information Form that the house had “a drive and parking for several cars”. However there is no dropped kerb across the footway which separates us from the road, and it looks as if the permissions and works needed to correct this would cost several £000s. My understanding is that without these we have no legal right to drive cars across the footway.
I suspect this was an honest mistake as the hardstanding in front of the house has clearly been used by cars for many years. But given the inaccurate statement on the PIF, can we claim the cost of the works from the sellers? Or our surveyor (RICS house buyer report) who missed this problem whilst referring to a “drive” in his report?
Many thanks
David
Thank you for your comment. We are not certain whether or not there is a claim here. It may very well be the case that the driveway can accommodate several cars, but what is left unsaid is whether or not the driveway can physically or legally be used in this way. This is arguably misleading and could give rise to a claim, however we suspect that the matter would turn on “reliance”, which is a constituent element of a misrepresentation claim.
Unless a buyer can say that they relied on what they were told when entering into the contract to purchase the property, they cannot blame the seller if what was said was inaccurate. Put another way and in the simplest of terms, if you specify to a seller of a car that you want a red car and they supply a white car, there would be a potential claim. If you did not specify the colour of the car, there would be no claim if the car you brought was not the desired red colour.
We suspect that you inspected the property before committing to the purchase. Arguably, this could have an impact on the outcome of any claim if a court found that you did not rely on what was said to you because the “truth” regarding the dropped curb had already been discovered by your inspection. Having said this, it is generally not a defence to a misrepresentation claim if the aggrieved party could have discovered the truth if they had looked.
As for your surveyor, whether or not there is claim for professional negligence here will depend on what the surveyor agreed to do. This is normally called the professional’s “retainer”. If you instructed your surveyor to check that the driveway could be used, then there may be a claim if a reasonably competent surveyor would have identified that the dropped curb would have prevented this. Even if it is not specifically agreed in the retainer, if the work is reasonably incidental to what you asked the surveyor to do and a reasonably competent surveyor would have identified the issue, then there may also be a claim.
As for the damages/compensation, this is rarely the cost of undertaking any necessary works. There is some case law which supports claim for damages like this, but the basic position is that the loss will be based on diminution in value, or the difference in what you paid for the property and what it was worth at the time with the problem. This may not be the same as the cost of any works, which is logical to a large degree as the parties may not have known what the cost would be and if, for example, the property would still represent a good investment for someone, that person may be willing to incur the cost of those works themselves to secure the property, rather than seek to negotiate a discount on the purchase price.
We purchased a cottage that was owned by a life time mortgage company. The lady who lived in the cottage had died and so no information was available. We paid for searches to be done and were told it was on mains water with a water meter and mains sewage. I also phoned the water authority to check regarding water and was told the same information as the searches. The house had been empty for approx 2 years and the water/heating system had been drained down so we could not try the system when we were shown round by the state agent. After moving in we discovered there was no mains water and no mains sewerage. The water authority denied responsibility because they said we should have checked which we thought was the point of searches???? We later discovered there was a bore hole which had been installed some years before. After living in the house for a few days we discovered a cess pit in the garden which we were also not informed about. Should the life time mortgage company, as the legal owners have informed us? And are the water authority at fault for giving us false information in the searches?
Thank you for your comment.
A water and drainage search would ordinarily reveal if a property was not connected to mains water and drainage. If this is not the case, then it may very well be that there is a basis to bring a claim against the search company.
Much of the time, searches are backed with an insurance policy in case incorrect information appears in them. We have acted in the past for an individual in exactly the same circumstances, namely that the search result inaccurately stated that the property was connected to mains drainage when it was not. The insurers agreed to indemnify our client for the cost of the necessary rectification works.
We would recommend that you check to see whether or not the searches included an insurance policy in the first instance and consider making a claim against that policy. You will need evidence that the search results were inaccurate, so you may need to obtain a report from a suitably qualified individual confirming that, as at the date the search was issued, there was no connection to the mains.
As for any sort of claim against the seller, from what you have written, this appears unlikely. There is no obligation on a seller to provide information regarding a property at all, if they do not want to. However, if information is volunteered, it should be accurately provided. If there are inaccuracies in what has been said, then a potential misrepresentation claim may arise.
It would be uncommon for a seller not to provide a TA6 or similar property information form, even though there is no obligation on a seller to provide it to a buyer. If this was provided, the answers to question 12.4 should be considered. This is the section where the seller is asked to confirm whether or not the property is, to the seller’s knowledge, connected to the mains and surface water drainage.
I purchased a house and exchanged contracts less than a month ago. Our surveyor had highlighted a damp patch in the hallway. The owner had disclosed on the contract they had made an insurance claim to rectify a leak from the upstairs bathroom. After moving in I believe this leak hasn’t been rectified and the details of an insurance claim are false leading to a costly repair, does this count as misrepresentation? Thanks
Thank you for your comment. A misrepresentation is normally any statement which is false and on which you rely and are entitled to rely, and as a result of your reliance on this have suffered a loss or damage. However it is not uncommon for property transactions to limit reliance or include entire agreement clauses which may limit your rights to claim for misrepresentation. As such we would have to see the contract before being able to advise upon this.
If this is something mentioned in the contract, then a failure by them to have rectified the leak may also be a breach of contract on their part, but once again we would need to see the contract in full before we could properly advise you in respect of this. On the other hand, depending on how it is worded it may be that they were only obliged to, or acknowledging that, they have claimed on the insurance to go towards this; it will depend on the exact wording used.
Please feel free to telephone our Litigation team at the Braintree office to discuss this further if you wish.