Misrepresentation of property - threat of court action

seh82

My partner and I sold a flat earlier this year to move to a house. 3 months after moving out of the flat, we received solicitor papers through the door where the person who had bought the flat was claiming misrepresentation. We were very shocked and found a solicitor straight away.

The reason for their claim is that they had an argument with the lady who lived next door (the flats are two story high in a block of 4) whilst they were in the communal garden. We do not know the full story of why an argument occurred, however we are supposedly to at blame because we did not tell them what this lady was like. We had completed all the forms when selling the flat and had noted on the 'property information' form where it asks if there have been any complaints/disputes about the property 'clarification via solicitors that the garden is communal'. The reason we noted this is because we had bought a share of the freehold whilst we lived at the flat and as a result, the other freeholders wanted to tackle the lady next door (she decided not to buy a share of the freehold) about her plant pots and attitude towards the garden, hence the solicitor correspondence.

At the time of completing the form, there was no malice from us and we were pushed on time due to the person who was buying our flat. We filled it in the best we could and we did not state that we had any neighbour disputes as we did not personally have any.

Our solicitor initially seemed to be fairly relaxed about everything after seeing the correspondence. There were letters back and forth to their solicitors. It was only recently that we asked for a bill from our solicitors that we realised the costs were mounting! We decided to back off, which seems to have made our solicitor get on our case and has scared us into thinking we are going to be found liable in a court because we didn't fill the 'property' form in properly. We have tried to argue our case by saying that although this new person has had a verbal argument with the lady next door, we did not have the same level of conflict and also that neither our solicitor at the time of selling or their solicitor picked up on our comment that we had put on the form. Should they have been the ones to ask for further details if they felt we were to vague? However, the correspondence that was sent when we were freeholders is what puts our case in danger of losing.

We have followed the advice of our solicitor and have made a part 36 offer which is just over half the monies they are looking for. We do not feel we are at fault but if our solicitor says we are at risk of losing if it goes to court then we have had to think long and hard about the costs that are escalating. They have declined our offer and are not willing to budge on it at all.

We thought that it was all about negotiating and wondered whether they are now at risk because they refused our part 36 offer? (the claimant is with a no win no fee solicitor and has a conditional fee agreement!). Apparently they are willing to go all the way to court!

Any advice welcomed :-)

pimento

Haven't you posted about this here before? The story seems very familiar.

pimento

I think the other thread was about the new buyer selling the flat using the original vendor's photographs even though the new buyer had re-decorated.

OP is this you?

seh82

I am the other partner. This is the same issue so you are right.

Things took a turn for the worst since my partner's last post.

We decided to back off from our solicitors and the whole case as it just seemed to be getting ridiculous and we feel like solicitors are just taking every penny we have!

However, because we backed off, our solicitor decided that they would bombard us with a load of e-mails saying how much we are at risk of losing, and losing badly. I have to be honest and say that we got scared by this so then decided to make the part 36 offer. We really have tried to resolve this but the other side just don't seem to be budging. Its so difficult being in this position and not knowing whether we really are at that much risk and whether this would go to court! Apparently the costs would be big and therefore would potentially bankrupt us which is what we are really worried about. But, why would our solicitor say these things if it wasn't true? He supposedly spoke to a barrister who also raised the same concerns ie we are at risk!

Its such a nightmare and the ironic thing is, we really didn't have an issue with that neighbour, we just got sucked into having our names on a load of correspondence, as the 'freeholder' to the said neighbour where the language of the letter implied that she was troublesome. The reality was very different and we rarely even saw her!

We feel like we have gone above and beyond but it doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere.

RAS

Hi

These are the old threads

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2840914

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2846222

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2840580

_bankrupted

This is one of those stories where people allow minor issues to get totally out of control, involve solicitors and end up in a worse position. All over a communal garden!!

I have read all the related posts and I don't think the true story has been told.

The OP buys the freehold and then shortly after moves on, there must have been an intention to stay in the flat for the medium term otherwise I doubt anyone would consider buying the freehold.

Why buy the freehold anyway! Especially when the very person who has been maintaining the garden (exclusively) for over 15 years does not!!

I am guessing here (I might be wrong, but I think I am a good judge of human nature) is that the woman of 15 years residency took the garden to be really her own as she maintained it and other residents came and went over those 15 years and had no real interest in the garden.

Newer residents arrive (yourself included) and want to take a greater interest in the garden, there are disagreements as the other woman has been doing her things for a very long time. You all get together and force her control out of the garden by buying into the freehold, which she does not (whether, she did not understand the concept, I doubt it, or couldn't afford to is really irrelevant). Nonetheless she feels that she has been deliberately forced out from any say in the upkeep of the gardens. She still attempts to have some control and you use solicitors to advise her she has no say in the communal gardens. This is the original dispute that you you indicated on the form.

However, she now makes your life hell as she feels she has been robbed of her garden from new residents. You find living in the flat untenable with her disruption and possibly ongoing legal issues/cost of still trying to stop her tinkering in the garden, and you sell up.

Anyway I expect the above is closer to the truth rather than a dispute over whether the flower pots should be clay or plastic.

G_M

Thanks bankrupted for the resume. I hate it when posters leave multiple related threads, especially where they don't mention/link them, and I couldn't be bothered to read back myself.

If you are right, the key point seems to be you use solicitors to advise her she has no say in the communal gardens. This is the original dispute that you you indicated on the form.

So there WAS a dispute but it WAS declared.

What's the problem?

PasturesNew

_bankrupted wrote: »

This is one of those stories where people allow minor issues to get totally out of control, involve solicitors and end up in a worse position. All over a communal garden!!

I have read all the related posts and I don't think the true story has been told.

The OP buys the freehold and then shortly after moves on, there must have been an intention to stay in the flat for the medium term otherwise I doubt anyone would consider buying the freehold.

Why buy the freehold anyway! Especially when the very person who has been maintaining the garden (exclusively) for over 15 years does not!!

I am guessing here (I might be wrong, but I think I am a good judge of human nature) is that the woman of 15 years residency took the garden to be really her own as she maintained it and other residents came and went over those 15 years and had no real interest in the garden.

Newer residents arrive (yourself included) and want to take a greater interest in the garden, there are disagreements as the other woman has been doing her things for a very long time. You all get together and force her control out of the garden by buying into the freehold, which she does not (whether, she did not understand the concept, I doubt it, or couldn't afford to is really irrelevant). Nonetheless she feels that she has been deliberately forced out from any say in the upkeep of the gardens. She still attempts to have some control and you use solicitors to advise her she has no say in the communal gardens. This is the original dispute that you you indicated on the form.

However, she now makes your life hell as she feels she has been robbed of her garden from new residents. You find living in the flat untenable with her disruption and possibly ongoing legal issues/cost of still trying to stop her tinkering in the garden, and you sell up.

Anyway I expect the above is closer to the truth rather than a dispute over whether the flower pots should be clay or plastic.

And

LEELEE wrote: »

The person moved in with a young child, used the communal garden with toys and the likes everywhere (we were told this by our previous neighbours) ad this is where the problems have arisen.

My guess is the previously lovely garden is now an untidy mass of toys etc and her planting/flowers had been ruined - and possibly any ornaments/similar treated disrespectfully or broken.

The garden is no longer a quiet, enjoyable haven, but taken over by a monster child whose parents are allowing things to be left willy nilly.