416 thoughts on “My Seller Lied To Me! When Is It Property Misrepresentation?”
I have recently bought a property for the first time. I have done further research into the property since buying and have discovered that it is in fact in a different (more expensive) council tax band than the band indicated on the Property Information Form in the Home Report. Would this be classed as misrepresentation, regardless of whether it was intentional or not?
In theory, this would possibly amount to a misrepresentation. The seller has made a statement of fact which was untrue, namely that the property was in a particular council tax band which it isn’t. It is not generally relevant whether or not this was deliberate or not but this will depend on the contractual terms agreed.
However, this statement about council tax bands might also amount to a statement of law. Only a statement of “fact” gives rise to an actionable claim for misrepresentation. Someone’s opinion of something does not and neither does a statement about the legal position of something. Having said this, there are some legal authorities which blur this distinction. However, we suspect that there would be an element of risk in what you have set out that the Court considered that the statement related to the legal banding of the property.
There is also a question of reliance. A claimant must show that they relied on the statement made by the defendant when entering into the contract. If the claimant would have proceeded in any event and did not rely on what was said, then no misrepresentation claim will arise as it cannot be said that the loss was caused by the defendant. If the buyer would have proceeded to purchase the property irrespective, it cannot be said that this decision was influenced by the seller’s statement.
I read today of an article in The Times about an Italian couple who had experienced loud plumbing noises from their neighbours, I commented on the article thus:
“I have this problem, next doors bathroom is next to my bedroom, with their toilet I can hear the flush and hear the guys peeing, despite having two false walls installed. It’s the same downstairs, unless my TV is on, I hear the same things with the addition of bodily noises. I have offered to pay for silent flush toilets for them, but they say they have them already. When I viewed the house the folk next door were out at work, I would never have entertained buying the house had I known about the noise. It is a building fault, nothing to do with the neighbours, yet being a semi my plumbing is on the opposite side to theirs, they say they never hear me.” Someone replied to me and said that the previous owners should have disclosed this info, any views on this please?
We do not agree that the previous owners were under an obligation to disclose this issue.
The basic position with respect to the sale of anything, including property and land, is “caveat emptor” or “buyer beware”. This means that it is down to the buyer to make whatever enquiries they deem necessary to enable them to make a decision about entering into the contract or not. In respect of some contracts, the law will impose requirements on a prospective seller to provide information to the buyer (for example, consumer contracts for the sale of goods or services) but there is no such applicable law to the sale of property or land.
This means that there is no obligation on a seller to disclose anything about a property if they do not want to. However, if a seller does provide information, that information should be accurate or they may face a later liability to the buyer for misrepresentation if the buyer relies on what was said when entering into the contract and suffers a loss as a result.
In practice, at the start of any conveyancing transaction, the seller will often provide basic information about the property that most buyers will want to know. This is normally in the form of a Property Information Form (TA6). However, it is up to the buyer to ask further questions before committing to the purchase. These further questions are normally called “additional enquiries”. A seller does not have to answer any enquiries at all if they do not want to, however the practical effect of this is that the buyer may not want to proceed. If the seller does not answer questions, or they provide answers which are not satisfactory or warrant further investigation, then it is up to the buyer to decide whether or not to accept the risk in proceeding at that point, ask more questions to satisfy themselves, or not enter into the contract at all.
I am in the process of buying a leasehold flat. The estate agent provided a floorplan which included a loft, and the square footage quoted also included the loft. We put in an offer which was accepted. The Homebuyer survey was undertaken and they included the loft, which then influenced the mortgage valuation. We have now learnt that the loft is not included in the purchase/deeds, and as the only access is through this flat, we have been advised that the landlord can make use of this loft space and require access at any time. We have already paid over £1,500 in fees. We verbally questioned whether the loft was included during the viewing and at no point were we told by the estate agents that it wasn’t. We may now decide not to carry on with the purchase but will have lost money.
Thank you for your comment. While we are unable to give specific advice in these comments, there will only be a claim here if exchange of contracts has taken place, and just because there is an offer and acceptance this does not necessarily mean a binding contract has arisen as those offers and acceptances will be subject to contract.
If exchange has taken place, it does sound like there may have been a misrepresentation by the seller which potentially may found a legal action. However this depends on exactly what was said to you in the documents relating to the property; a verbal enquiry by the estate agent may not be enough because often the contracts of sale have exclusion clauses for all verbal representations. Please feel free to telephone our Litigation team at the Braintree office for a confidential discussion.
If there has not been exchange of contracts, then there is unlikely to be a claim. A complaint to the ombudsman for the estate agent may be possible but this may not get you any redress or the recovery of your already incurred costs.
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.
I have recently bought a property for the first time. I have done further research into the property since buying and have discovered that it is in fact in a different (more expensive) council tax band than the band indicated on the Property Information Form in the Home Report. Would this be classed as misrepresentation, regardless of whether it was intentional or not?
In theory, this would possibly amount to a misrepresentation. The seller has made a statement of fact which was untrue, namely that the property was in a particular council tax band which it isn’t. It is not generally relevant whether or not this was deliberate or not but this will depend on the contractual terms agreed.
However, this statement about council tax bands might also amount to a statement of law. Only a statement of “fact” gives rise to an actionable claim for misrepresentation. Someone’s opinion of something does not and neither does a statement about the legal position of something. Having said this, there are some legal authorities which blur this distinction. However, we suspect that there would be an element of risk in what you have set out that the Court considered that the statement related to the legal banding of the property.
There is also a question of reliance. A claimant must show that they relied on the statement made by the defendant when entering into the contract. If the claimant would have proceeded in any event and did not rely on what was said, then no misrepresentation claim will arise as it cannot be said that the loss was caused by the defendant. If the buyer would have proceeded to purchase the property irrespective, it cannot be said that this decision was influenced by the seller’s statement.
I read today of an article in The Times about an Italian couple who had experienced loud plumbing noises from their neighbours, I commented on the article thus:
“I have this problem, next doors bathroom is next to my bedroom, with their toilet I can hear the flush and hear the guys peeing, despite having two false walls installed. It’s the same downstairs, unless my TV is on, I hear the same things with the addition of bodily noises. I have offered to pay for silent flush toilets for them, but they say they have them already. When I viewed the house the folk next door were out at work, I would never have entertained buying the house had I known about the noise. It is a building fault, nothing to do with the neighbours, yet being a semi my plumbing is on the opposite side to theirs, they say they never hear me.”
Someone replied to me and said that the previous owners should have disclosed this info, any views on this please?
Thank you for your comment.
We do not agree that the previous owners were under an obligation to disclose this issue.
The basic position with respect to the sale of anything, including property and land, is “caveat emptor” or “buyer beware”. This means that it is down to the buyer to make whatever enquiries they deem necessary to enable them to make a decision about entering into the contract or not. In respect of some contracts, the law will impose requirements on a prospective seller to provide information to the buyer (for example, consumer contracts for the sale of goods or services) but there is no such applicable law to the sale of property or land.
This means that there is no obligation on a seller to disclose anything about a property if they do not want to. However, if a seller does provide information, that information should be accurate or they may face a later liability to the buyer for misrepresentation if the buyer relies on what was said when entering into the contract and suffers a loss as a result.
In practice, at the start of any conveyancing transaction, the seller will often provide basic information about the property that most buyers will want to know. This is normally in the form of a Property Information Form (TA6). However, it is up to the buyer to ask further questions before committing to the purchase. These further questions are normally called “additional enquiries”. A seller does not have to answer any enquiries at all if they do not want to, however the practical effect of this is that the buyer may not want to proceed. If the seller does not answer questions, or they provide answers which are not satisfactory or warrant further investigation, then it is up to the buyer to decide whether or not to accept the risk in proceeding at that point, ask more questions to satisfy themselves, or not enter into the contract at all.
I am in the process of buying a leasehold flat. The estate agent provided a floorplan which included a loft, and the square footage quoted also included the loft. We put in an offer which was accepted. The Homebuyer survey was undertaken and they included the loft, which then influenced the mortgage valuation. We have now learnt that the loft is not included in the purchase/deeds, and as the only access is through this flat, we have been advised that the landlord can make use of this loft space and require access at any time. We have already paid over £1,500 in fees. We verbally questioned whether the loft was included during the viewing and at no point were we told by the estate agents that it wasn’t. We may now decide not to carry on with the purchase but will have lost money.
Dear Megan,
Thank you for your comment. While we are unable to give specific advice in these comments, there will only be a claim here if exchange of contracts has taken place, and just because there is an offer and acceptance this does not necessarily mean a binding contract has arisen as those offers and acceptances will be subject to contract.
If exchange has taken place, it does sound like there may have been a misrepresentation by the seller which potentially may found a legal action. However this depends on exactly what was said to you in the documents relating to the property; a verbal enquiry by the estate agent may not be enough because often the contracts of sale have exclusion clauses for all verbal representations. Please feel free to telephone our Litigation team at the Braintree office for a confidential discussion.
If there has not been exchange of contracts, then there is unlikely to be a claim. A complaint to the ombudsman for the estate agent may be possible but this may not get you any redress or the recovery of your already incurred costs.