416 thoughts on “My Seller Lied To Me! When Is It Property Misrepresentation?”
Hi,
We have recently moved into our new home as of July 2024. A tradesman bought the house, done it all up and sold it on to us. He had done a good job by changing the EPC from an F to a B but we have many issues which I am concerned about.
Penetrating damp, linoleum floor lined directly onto concrete creating moisture all downstairs. Walls are un boarded and I plastered behind our kitchen cabinets creating mold… the kitchen is new and the house is stone.
I am on the verge of crying after discovering a false wall being installed in front of an exterior moist stone wall. A clearly wet wall behind another of which I only discovered as there is a stop cock there. We are having a lot of issues with mould.
These issues were not made prevalent to us as he “put a lot of effort in making the house better”. This effort seems half [hearted]!
Our neighbours told us the house had been previously flooded on purpose by the previous tenants to leave their tenancy agreement and been in a house fire… should the tradesman have shared this information with us? He would have known given the extent of the damage that would have been visible. I am now having to deal with the moisture that’s still trapped in the sandstone and mortar… I am going to have to pay to get the walls seen to, repaired, boarded and plastered correctly, without mentioning decoration.
He would have known about the flood as it is clear in the previous listing on zoopla. There’s water marks everywhere. He has installed an ASH pump and the radiators are like warm… meaning they don’t even warm up the walls or ventilate them as they should. I feel like this is a lesser of two evils. Not only is it good for the environment but I’m suffering as the house is not healing as it should.
Differently, a room upstairs is not plastered. It has plasterboard, a layer of what looks like foil. Then a white wallpaper on top and then a 3mm thick foam wallpaper with an adhesive foil back. There is fabric tape around plugs and questionable diy decisions made.
I keep finding wood lice in the bedrooms upstairs which is a sign of damp along with green mould on the skirtings. I am asthmatic and I hope this isn’t impacting my health.
He dressed up this house to make it look like he did a fantastic job. I find this deceiving and frankly withholding information. This explains why our insurance was so expensive and I am annoyed and upset by what I have found in the last month, let alone what else I have to find.
Is there anything I can do? I was a first time buyer and we paid £240,000 on a small semi 4 bed but given these issues, I don’t think it’s even worth £180,000. I am going to have to get all the walls seen to, including the wet wall with a false wall in front of it…, new flooring installed including a leveller, DPM, underlay. I haven’t been in the attic yet so I can’t wait for that. He’s already told me that these no insulation in one section and that it’s still open with our neighbours.
Thank you for your comment and we can appreciate how disappointing and upsetting these things can be.
The basic position is that a seller is not obliged to disclose anything about a property to a prospective buyer. It is up to the buyer to check matters and for this, they will often instruct a surveyor. If you instructed a surveyor, and it can be said that the surveyor failed in their duty of care to identify these issues (i.e. what the surveyor agreed to check for you would have included spotting any of these issues) then there may be a professional negligence claim against the surveyor.
This is not the first time we have seen this issue but, unless of the complaints you now have it can be said that the seller expressly (or at least very strongly implied) that they were not there, you may have some difficulty pursuing a claim, but it is not out of the question. The client that we previously acted for was informed that the property had been “fully refurbished”. Like you, the work was questionable at best. However, the issue would likely turn on two particular points. Was the representation that the property had been “done up” or “fully refurbished” merely a statement of opinion, rather than a statement of fact and if it was a statement of fact, meaning that it would make the claim actionable, did it imply a particular quality? On the one hand, it is probably fair to assume that a newly refurbished property had been completed to a good and acceptable standard (but of course, what that standard is also remains subjective to some degree). On the other hand, you can “do up” a property badly, but it is still “done up”, just not to a particularly good standard.
If you have evidence that the property had flooded during the seller’s period of ownership, and the answer in the standard property information form was “no”, then this would be a reasonably good example of a misrepresentation.
I live next to a small plot of land that the seller has been trying to sell as a buildable lot for 8 years. All offers have fallen apart after realizing it would be very risky to get all of the approvals due to the high water table and very strict septic rules (it is directly on the water). The property is on the market again, but the MLS listing shows that the property has been sold twice in the past 3 years for £140,000 and again for £280,000. These sales never occurred and the town records clearly show that the only purchase history is £40,000 in 2016. Is there any recourse we can take (beyond talking to the realtor) to have that listing reviewed for accuracy?
This is not really something we can advise upon, as it is a very novel query.
What we can say is that land changes hands “on paper” so to speak. In short, a seller will transfer the land to a buyer and the paperwork is then sent to the Land Registry to record the transaction and register the new owner. The Land Registry records data relating to the sales of registered land and it would probably be best to contact them, as they can tell you who has made the mistake with respect to their records.
Hi, My partner recently bought a grade 2 listed property from her local council at auction. We both went through the sellers pack carefully, all okay as far as that is concerned. However we have just discovered that the property was only in auction following two almost sales which the council lost when those potential buyers found out that it was actually a scheduled monument. The sellers pack neglected to say it was such, the council clearly knew and also clearly knew it was a big issue when coming to sell. We now realise that the property which needs work, which we were aware of and had costed taking into account the grade 2 listing, now is completely unaffordable, no doubt by an order of magnitude. And, of course this renders the property all but worthless. Any thoughts on this? Is there such a thing as fraud by omission?
We cannot provide specific advice on our website but can set out some general points which might be relevant considerations. Such guidance is not, however, a substitute for proper legal advice considered in the context of any particular case.
The basic position is that a seller is not under an obligation to disclose anything in particular about the property or even answer a buyer’s questions. Therefore not saying something does not amount to a misrepresentation, fraudulent or otherwise. The buyer cannot complain about being misled by the seller if nothing misleading was said by the seller for the buyer to rely on. If the buyer has relied on assumptions, then it is not the seller that has misled them.
Sometimes it is possible to base a misrepresentation claim on an omission, but there would generally also have to be something said by the seller to (in effect) create an obligation on the seller to set out the facts in full. What the seller says might have been perfectly true and accurate and, therefore of itself, not a misrepresentation. However, because of some fundamental fact or point that was omitted, it renders what the seller has said inaccurate and misleading.
By way of a simple example, it could be that a seller truthfully explains that the property benefits from a dedicated parking space and points to a terms in a lease which confirms that it legally does. However, the seller fails to point out that the parking space cannot be used because ownership of it is in dispute and someone else has blocked access to it, that it is damaged beyond repair and cannot be used again, or perhaps that using the parking space might be a breach of planning restrictions. Whilst just an illustration (and one that is probably open to some legal debate, as misrepresentations by omissions are complicated), it is all well and good to have the legal benefit of a parking space, but it does seem quite a fundamental point that it cannot be physically used.
You are right to mention “fraud” (in the civil, rather than criminal sense), as it is normally in a fraudulent misrepresentation matter that such points come up. A party to a contract might deliberately over embellish particular facts in an attempt to convince the other party to rely on what is being said and enter into the contract (as principles relating to misrepresentation apply to all contracts, not just the sale of land and real property). If they have deliberately omitted or supressed certain additional information which in effect renders what was actually said factually inaccurate, then there may be a claim. However, any claims involving fraud or deceit are often difficult evidentially, as proving the other party’s state of mind (i.e. that they knew they were misleading the aggrieved party) can be difficult.
Another “exception” to the rule regarding the fact that there is no obligation on seller to volunteer information about a property is the “duty” to disclose latent title defects. These are things such as rights of way or other rights over the property which cannot be discovered on reasonable inspection. It is questionable the extent to which Grade II listed status would be considered a latent title defect, especially since there are ways to discover if a property is listed or not. SPS Groundworks v Mahil [2022] is a relatively recent decision of the High Court. This case involved an overage agreement (a right over a property, which again was sold at auction) and it was held that as the seller was aware of it, the seller was “…bound to give the purchaser full, frank and fair information, or a fair and proper opportunity to gain such information, about any defect… Full and frank disclosure required the Overage Clause to be specifically brought to a potential purchaser’s attention by description in the particulars, addendum notice of the type produced at the second auction, or specific reference by the auctioneer.”
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 have recently moved into our new home as of July 2024. A tradesman bought the house, done it all up and sold it on to us. He had done a good job by changing the EPC from an F to a B but we have many issues which I am concerned about.
Penetrating damp, linoleum floor lined directly onto concrete creating moisture all downstairs. Walls are un boarded and I plastered behind our kitchen cabinets creating mold… the kitchen is new and the house is stone.
I am on the verge of crying after discovering a false wall being installed in front of an exterior moist stone wall. A clearly wet wall behind another of which I only discovered as there is a stop cock there. We are having a lot of issues with mould.
These issues were not made prevalent to us as he “put a lot of effort in making the house better”. This effort seems half [hearted]!
Our neighbours told us the house had been previously flooded on purpose by the previous tenants to leave their tenancy agreement and been in a house fire… should the tradesman have shared this information with us? He would have known given the extent of the damage that would have been visible. I am now having to deal with the moisture that’s still trapped in the sandstone and mortar… I am going to have to pay to get the walls seen to, repaired, boarded and plastered correctly, without mentioning decoration.
He would have known about the flood as it is clear in the previous listing on zoopla. There’s water marks everywhere. He has installed an ASH pump and the radiators are like warm… meaning they don’t even warm up the walls or ventilate them as they should. I feel like this is a lesser of two evils. Not only is it good for the environment but I’m suffering as the house is not healing as it should.
Differently, a room upstairs is not plastered. It has plasterboard, a layer of what looks like foil. Then a white wallpaper on top and then a 3mm thick foam wallpaper with an adhesive foil back. There is fabric tape around plugs and questionable diy decisions made.
I keep finding wood lice in the bedrooms upstairs which is a sign of damp along with green mould on the skirtings. I am asthmatic and I hope this isn’t impacting my health.
He dressed up this house to make it look like he did a fantastic job. I find this deceiving and frankly withholding information. This explains why our insurance was so expensive and I am annoyed and upset by what I have found in the last month, let alone what else I have to find.
Is there anything I can do? I was a first time buyer and we paid £240,000 on a small semi 4 bed but given these issues, I don’t think it’s even worth £180,000. I am going to have to get all the walls seen to, including the wet wall with a false wall in front of it…, new flooring installed including a leveller, DPM, underlay. I haven’t been in the attic yet so I can’t wait for that. He’s already told me that these no insulation in one section and that it’s still open with our neighbours.
Thank you for your comment and we can appreciate how disappointing and upsetting these things can be.
The basic position is that a seller is not obliged to disclose anything about a property to a prospective buyer. It is up to the buyer to check matters and for this, they will often instruct a surveyor. If you instructed a surveyor, and it can be said that the surveyor failed in their duty of care to identify these issues (i.e. what the surveyor agreed to check for you would have included spotting any of these issues) then there may be a professional negligence claim against the surveyor.
This is not the first time we have seen this issue but, unless of the complaints you now have it can be said that the seller expressly (or at least very strongly implied) that they were not there, you may have some difficulty pursuing a claim, but it is not out of the question. The client that we previously acted for was informed that the property had been “fully refurbished”. Like you, the work was questionable at best. However, the issue would likely turn on two particular points. Was the representation that the property had been “done up” or “fully refurbished” merely a statement of opinion, rather than a statement of fact and if it was a statement of fact, meaning that it would make the claim actionable, did it imply a particular quality? On the one hand, it is probably fair to assume that a newly refurbished property had been completed to a good and acceptable standard (but of course, what that standard is also remains subjective to some degree). On the other hand, you can “do up” a property badly, but it is still “done up”, just not to a particularly good standard.
If you have evidence that the property had flooded during the seller’s period of ownership, and the answer in the standard property information form was “no”, then this would be a reasonably good example of a misrepresentation.
I live next to a small plot of land that the seller has been trying to sell as a buildable lot for 8 years. All offers have fallen apart after realizing it would be very risky to get all of the approvals due to the high water table and very strict septic rules (it is directly on the water). The property is on the market again, but the MLS listing shows that the property has been sold twice in the past 3 years for £140,000 and again for £280,000. These sales never occurred and the town records clearly show that the only purchase history is £40,000 in 2016. Is there any recourse we can take (beyond talking to the realtor) to have that listing reviewed for accuracy?
This is not really something we can advise upon, as it is a very novel query.
What we can say is that land changes hands “on paper” so to speak. In short, a seller will transfer the land to a buyer and the paperwork is then sent to the Land Registry to record the transaction and register the new owner. The Land Registry records data relating to the sales of registered land and it would probably be best to contact them, as they can tell you who has made the mistake with respect to their records.
Hi, My partner recently bought a grade 2 listed property from her local council at auction. We both went through the sellers pack carefully, all okay as far as that is concerned. However we have just discovered that the property was only in auction following two almost sales which the council lost when those potential buyers found out that it was actually a scheduled monument. The sellers pack neglected to say it was such, the council clearly knew and also clearly knew it was a big issue when coming to sell. We now realise that the property which needs work, which we were aware of and had costed taking into account the grade 2 listing, now is completely unaffordable, no doubt by an order of magnitude. And, of course this renders the property all but worthless. Any thoughts on this? Is there such a thing as fraud by omission?
Thank you for your comment.
We cannot provide specific advice on our website but can set out some general points which might be relevant considerations. Such guidance is not, however, a substitute for proper legal advice considered in the context of any particular case.
The basic position is that a seller is not under an obligation to disclose anything in particular about the property or even answer a buyer’s questions. Therefore not saying something does not amount to a misrepresentation, fraudulent or otherwise. The buyer cannot complain about being misled by the seller if nothing misleading was said by the seller for the buyer to rely on. If the buyer has relied on assumptions, then it is not the seller that has misled them.
Sometimes it is possible to base a misrepresentation claim on an omission, but there would generally also have to be something said by the seller to (in effect) create an obligation on the seller to set out the facts in full. What the seller says might have been perfectly true and accurate and, therefore of itself, not a misrepresentation. However, because of some fundamental fact or point that was omitted, it renders what the seller has said inaccurate and misleading.
By way of a simple example, it could be that a seller truthfully explains that the property benefits from a dedicated parking space and points to a terms in a lease which confirms that it legally does. However, the seller fails to point out that the parking space cannot be used because ownership of it is in dispute and someone else has blocked access to it, that it is damaged beyond repair and cannot be used again, or perhaps that using the parking space might be a breach of planning restrictions. Whilst just an illustration (and one that is probably open to some legal debate, as misrepresentations by omissions are complicated), it is all well and good to have the legal benefit of a parking space, but it does seem quite a fundamental point that it cannot be physically used.
You are right to mention “fraud” (in the civil, rather than criminal sense), as it is normally in a fraudulent misrepresentation matter that such points come up. A party to a contract might deliberately over embellish particular facts in an attempt to convince the other party to rely on what is being said and enter into the contract (as principles relating to misrepresentation apply to all contracts, not just the sale of land and real property). If they have deliberately omitted or supressed certain additional information which in effect renders what was actually said factually inaccurate, then there may be a claim. However, any claims involving fraud or deceit are often difficult evidentially, as proving the other party’s state of mind (i.e. that they knew they were misleading the aggrieved party) can be difficult.
Another “exception” to the rule regarding the fact that there is no obligation on seller to volunteer information about a property is the “duty” to disclose latent title defects. These are things such as rights of way or other rights over the property which cannot be discovered on reasonable inspection. It is questionable the extent to which Grade II listed status would be considered a latent title defect, especially since there are ways to discover if a property is listed or not. SPS Groundworks v Mahil [2022] is a relatively recent decision of the High Court. This case involved an overage agreement (a right over a property, which again was sold at auction) and it was held that as the seller was aware of it, the seller was “…bound to give the purchaser full, frank and fair information, or a fair and proper opportunity to gain such information, about any defect… Full and frank disclosure required the Overage Clause to be specifically brought to a potential purchaser’s attention by description in the particulars, addendum notice of the type produced at the second auction, or specific reference by the auctioneer.”