416 thoughts on “My Seller Lied To Me! When Is It Property Misrepresentation?”
Hi. I bought a house just over 5 years ago asking how the neighbours was as I have a son. Anyway was told everything was fine. Later we found out my neighbour stabbed her ex partner and lived with pure hell. As well as me and my partner being threatened with a knife. Unfortunately she also owns her property and is a pure alcoholic. My case is why wasn’t we informed that all this and other incidents happened before we bought the house and was never informed as I would never had purchased the property if we knew this.
We are sorry to hear of this. As to whether or not there is a misrepresentation claim would depend on the terms of the contract. Most of the time, the contract would exclude liability for oral representations. Normally, only representations of fact, in writing and between the parties or their solicitors, are actionable. This is a standard contractual clause to ensure that there is no misunderstanding between the parties and that everything relevant to the transaction is committed to writing.
Further your case has similarities to the case of Sykes v Taylor [2004] which we mention here. In that case, the Court held that when the seller answered “No” the broad question about whether or not there was anything they thought the buyer ought to know about, when in fact there had been a murder in the house, the Court considered that this was not a misrepresentation. The answer to your query could be considered equally subjective, creating risk in any claim. There may be a case (although you would have only six years to pursue it) but it depends very much on precisely what you asked, what you were told and what the seller experienced.
Would this apply if the seller placed the house on the market and then agreed to a sale knowing that information relied on by the purchaser was false. The purchaser proceeded in good faith to spend money on legal fees, surveys etc. And due to the passing of time when the false information came to light the purchaser had no choice but to rent a property (as theirs was due to complete) incurring storage and rental costs which would not have been required) The misrepresentation was the house was listed and had no listed building consent for any works or a barn conversion. This was not disclosed and on the Property Information given by the seller it said no works requiring LBC had taken place. Other information was also not disclosed.
For any misrepresentation claim to exist, a contract must be entered into and the contract must be entered into because the seller relied solely or in part on what the seller said. From what you have said, it sounds as though by the time you exchanged contracts, you were aware of the issues. It cannot therefore be said that you were induced to enter into the contract by reason of something that the seller said which was factually inaccurate; you knew what the position was when you exchanged contracts.
Hi. I have recently purchased a property which has since faced subsidence issues in the first three months of our ownership. My insurers are requesting the previous owners insurance details which I am told is standard practice but they are refusing to provide us with the details. Do I need to take them to court to obtain this? Thanks
Thank you for your comment. We cannot really advise on the practice of any given insurance company, but if they are unreasonably refusing to indemnify you for an insured event then, subject to the terms of your policy, you may be able to take some action against the insurer.
As for the seller, we do not believe that there is an obligation on a seller to provide historical information regarding insurance. Unless this was a contractual term you agreed with the seller, we think it is unlikely that you would get very far with any claim.
However, sometimes it can be appropriate to approach a third party that has information regarding a possible claim and if necessary, apply for a third party/non-party disclosure order from the Court. We cannot really say whether or not this is an appropriate step to take without knowing more.
It might be that the insurer is considering trying to obtain details from you so it can suggest that you were aware of the issue and therefore try to decline to indemnify you on the basis of a material non-disclosure. It could be that the insurer is considering a subrogated claim against the seller. A subrogated claim is a right that an insurer will generally have that they can use to pursue the person that caused you, and therefore them, the loss.
Whilst we cannot give you any specific legal advice here, we would probably suggest you ask your insurers on what basis they are asking for the information (it could be, for example, pursuant to a contractual term of the policy). It may be that you need to explain that you have asked but the seller will not provide this. This is something that they would probably need to be told in any event, as you would not want to incur the cost of any sort of Court application without first checking that the insurer will not take a view on their position. We would need to see all of the documentation and correspondence in relation to the matter to form a view.
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. I bought a house just over 5 years ago asking how the neighbours was as I have a son. Anyway was told everything was fine. Later we found out my neighbour stabbed her ex partner and lived with pure hell. As well as me and my partner being threatened with a knife. Unfortunately she also owns her property and is a pure alcoholic. My case is why wasn’t we informed that all this and other incidents happened before we bought the house and was never informed as I would never had purchased the property if we knew this.
We are sorry to hear of this. As to whether or not there is a misrepresentation claim would depend on the terms of the contract. Most of the time, the contract would exclude liability for oral representations. Normally, only representations of fact, in writing and between the parties or their solicitors, are actionable. This is a standard contractual clause to ensure that there is no misunderstanding between the parties and that everything relevant to the transaction is committed to writing.
Further your case has similarities to the case of Sykes v Taylor [2004] which we mention here. In that case, the Court held that when the seller answered “No” the broad question about whether or not there was anything they thought the buyer ought to know about, when in fact there had been a murder in the house, the Court considered that this was not a misrepresentation. The answer to your query could be considered equally subjective, creating risk in any claim. There may be a case (although you would have only six years to pursue it) but it depends very much on precisely what you asked, what you were told and what the seller experienced.
Would this apply if the seller placed the house on the market and then agreed to a sale knowing that information relied on by the purchaser was false. The purchaser proceeded in good faith to spend money on legal fees, surveys etc. And due to the passing of time when the false information came to light the purchaser had no choice but to rent a property (as theirs was due to complete) incurring storage and rental costs which would not have been required) The misrepresentation was the house was listed and had no listed building consent for any works or a barn conversion. This was not disclosed and on the Property Information given by the seller it said no works requiring LBC had taken place. Other information was also not disclosed.
For any misrepresentation claim to exist, a contract must be entered into and the contract must be entered into because the seller relied solely or in part on what the seller said. From what you have said, it sounds as though by the time you exchanged contracts, you were aware of the issues. It cannot therefore be said that you were induced to enter into the contract by reason of something that the seller said which was factually inaccurate; you knew what the position was when you exchanged contracts.
Hi. I have recently purchased a property which has since faced subsidence issues in the first three months of our ownership. My insurers are requesting the previous owners insurance details which I am told is standard practice but they are refusing to provide us with the details. Do I need to take them to court to obtain this? Thanks
Thank you for your comment. We cannot really advise on the practice of any given insurance company, but if they are unreasonably refusing to indemnify you for an insured event then, subject to the terms of your policy, you may be able to take some action against the insurer.
As for the seller, we do not believe that there is an obligation on a seller to provide historical information regarding insurance. Unless this was a contractual term you agreed with the seller, we think it is unlikely that you would get very far with any claim.
However, sometimes it can be appropriate to approach a third party that has information regarding a possible claim and if necessary, apply for a third party/non-party disclosure order from the Court. We cannot really say whether or not this is an appropriate step to take without knowing more.
It might be that the insurer is considering trying to obtain details from you so it can suggest that you were aware of the issue and therefore try to decline to indemnify you on the basis of a material non-disclosure. It could be that the insurer is considering a subrogated claim against the seller. A subrogated claim is a right that an insurer will generally have that they can use to pursue the person that caused you, and therefore them, the loss.
Whilst we cannot give you any specific legal advice here, we would probably suggest you ask your insurers on what basis they are asking for the information (it could be, for example, pursuant to a contractual term of the policy). It may be that you need to explain that you have asked but the seller will not provide this. This is something that they would probably need to be told in any event, as you would not want to incur the cost of any sort of Court application without first checking that the insurer will not take a view on their position. We would need to see all of the documentation and correspondence in relation to the matter to form a view.