416 thoughts on “My Seller Lied To Me! When Is It Property Misrepresentation?”
Hi. We found out that the freeholder who granted us the lease 10 years ago misrepresented the situation. This person sold the freehold a couple of years later. Should our misrepresentation claim be against the current freeholder? The current freeholder is well aware of the problem. Thank you very much.
We cannot provide specific advice on our website. We can, however, provide some general guidance but do need to point out that it may not apply in your circumstances.
In any misrepresentation claim, the claimant will be the representee (the person that was provided with the representation which they relied on when deciding to enter into the contract in question) and the defendant will be the representor (the person that made the representation). Most of the time, these are the same parties to the contract, but not always. Sometimes third parties can be held liable for misrepresentation. Unless the current freeholder made the representation to you, it is quite unlikely that they would be the defendant.
It is also noted that you purchased your property 10 years ago (presumably by way of a grant of a new lease). The basic limitation period that would probably apply in your matter would be 6 years from the date of exchange of contracts (but in some circumstances it can be 6 years from a different point in time). It would therefore be necessary to carefully consider whether or not you are out of time to pursue any sort of claim first.
Can you reclaim survey and conveyancing fees from a seller who lied about the number of bedrooms in the house in the property listing? We have not purchased the house yet but we may pull out unless a new price is agreed. If the seller pulls out we will want to claim our legal fees. Is this fine under tort law? Or is pure economic loss not acceptable in that case?
In short, the answer is no. Until such time as contract is entered into, there is no contractual basis to pursue a claim against a seller. Likewise, it would be very unusual for a seller to have a duty of care to a buyer, which could form the basis of any claim in tort. Unless you can prove that the seller deliberately caused you to incur losses, which appears very unlikely, we cannot really see that you have any basis of claim. However, we cannot provide specific advice on our website and part of the reason for this is because we do not know the full facts of the matter.
Even if there is a basis of claim, you may find that the seller contends that you caused your own loss by failing to inspect the property before placing an offer on it and instructing solicitors. Presumably you did not inspect the property, or you would have identified the number of rooms.
I am wondering if we’ll have a leg to stand on. The previous owner of our house sold to us claiming our neighbour ‘liked a drink but kept himself to himself’ we bought the house, then later found out he had an ASBO and has caused so many problems. Now, I understand they may not have to disclose certain things, however, she did mention him but stated as I’ve said above. Later I have found out how bad he was for her too, other neighbours have come forward with stories and it seems she wanted a quick sale. Now we’re stuck. If we sell we could make a loss. Is she responsible for any of this legally or is her responsibility a moral one? There were police reports, she played them down to our solicitors.
We see a lot of issues like this. No one wants to live next door to a horrible neighbour and to a degree, it is understandable that a seller does not want to lose their buyer or sell at a loss so will try to play down the issue. Sadly, this is where a seller encounters difficulties.
In one particular case that we have referred to previously, the seller was engaged in an ongoing dispute with a neighbour over parking issues. When the buyer discovered this on moving in, he sued the seller for misrepresenting the situation. The seller argued that as far as he was concerned, there was no dispute, and this was why he stated that he was not aware of any ongoing matters that could give rise to a dispute with neighbours. The Court found that on a proper interpretation of what was being asked by the seller and the response given by the buyer, the seller misrepresented the fact that there was an ongoing dispute.
The normal measure of damages would be diminution in value. This is the difference between what someone would pay for the property knowing about the issue in question and what the property was worth without the problem. This is not always the same as the cost of fixing the problem or the loss that would be suffered if the property was sold subsequently with “full disclosure” of the current issues.
Whilst we cannot provide specific advice on our website, and there would be some background reading and discussions with you necessary, if it is the case that what was told to you was factually inaccurate, or was indeed factually accurate but because of what was left unsaid, you were misled into thinking the situation was fine and the seller knew you had formed this view, then yes, there may be a basis of claim and you may have a leg to stand on.
Do feel free to get in touch if you would like to consider the matter in more detail.
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 found out that the freeholder who granted us the lease 10 years ago misrepresented the situation. This person sold the freehold a couple of years later. Should our misrepresentation claim be against the current freeholder? The current freeholder is well aware of the problem.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for your comment.
We cannot provide specific advice on our website. We can, however, provide some general guidance but do need to point out that it may not apply in your circumstances.
In any misrepresentation claim, the claimant will be the representee (the person that was provided with the representation which they relied on when deciding to enter into the contract in question) and the defendant will be the representor (the person that made the representation). Most of the time, these are the same parties to the contract, but not always. Sometimes third parties can be held liable for misrepresentation. Unless the current freeholder made the representation to you, it is quite unlikely that they would be the defendant.
It is also noted that you purchased your property 10 years ago (presumably by way of a grant of a new lease). The basic limitation period that would probably apply in your matter would be 6 years from the date of exchange of contracts (but in some circumstances it can be 6 years from a different point in time). It would therefore be necessary to carefully consider whether or not you are out of time to pursue any sort of claim first.
Can you reclaim survey and conveyancing fees from a seller who lied about the number of bedrooms in the house in the property listing? We have not purchased the house yet but we may pull out unless a new price is agreed. If the seller pulls out we will want to claim our legal fees. Is this fine under tort law? Or is pure economic loss not acceptable in that case?
Thank you for your comment.
In short, the answer is no. Until such time as contract is entered into, there is no contractual basis to pursue a claim against a seller. Likewise, it would be very unusual for a seller to have a duty of care to a buyer, which could form the basis of any claim in tort. Unless you can prove that the seller deliberately caused you to incur losses, which appears very unlikely, we cannot really see that you have any basis of claim. However, we cannot provide specific advice on our website and part of the reason for this is because we do not know the full facts of the matter.
Even if there is a basis of claim, you may find that the seller contends that you caused your own loss by failing to inspect the property before placing an offer on it and instructing solicitors. Presumably you did not inspect the property, or you would have identified the number of rooms.
Hi,
I am wondering if we’ll have a leg to stand on. The previous owner of our house sold to us claiming our neighbour ‘liked a drink but kept himself to himself’ we bought the house, then later found out he had an ASBO and has caused so many problems. Now, I understand they may not have to disclose certain things, however, she did mention him but stated as I’ve said above. Later I have found out how bad he was for her too, other neighbours have come forward with stories and it seems she wanted a quick sale. Now we’re stuck. If we sell we could make a loss. Is she responsible for any of this legally or is her responsibility a moral one? There were police reports, she played them down to our solicitors.
Thank you for your comment.
We see a lot of issues like this. No one wants to live next door to a horrible neighbour and to a degree, it is understandable that a seller does not want to lose their buyer or sell at a loss so will try to play down the issue. Sadly, this is where a seller encounters difficulties.
In one particular case that we have referred to previously, the seller was engaged in an ongoing dispute with a neighbour over parking issues. When the buyer discovered this on moving in, he sued the seller for misrepresenting the situation. The seller argued that as far as he was concerned, there was no dispute, and this was why he stated that he was not aware of any ongoing matters that could give rise to a dispute with neighbours. The Court found that on a proper interpretation of what was being asked by the seller and the response given by the buyer, the seller misrepresented the fact that there was an ongoing dispute.
The normal measure of damages would be diminution in value. This is the difference between what someone would pay for the property knowing about the issue in question and what the property was worth without the problem. This is not always the same as the cost of fixing the problem or the loss that would be suffered if the property was sold subsequently with “full disclosure” of the current issues.
Whilst we cannot provide specific advice on our website, and there would be some background reading and discussions with you necessary, if it is the case that what was told to you was factually inaccurate, or was indeed factually accurate but because of what was left unsaid, you were misled into thinking the situation was fine and the seller knew you had formed this view, then yes, there may be a basis of claim and you may have a leg to stand on.
Do feel free to get in touch if you would like to consider the matter in more detail.