False advertising or not?

junglist_matty

We are 2 months into buying our first property, we've had a couple of problems along the way and were hoping that this week we can look to getting a completion date.

I would like to know if we can sue for false advertising on a property if we decide not to proceed with the purchase; The amount being sued would be costs we have made for searches and enquiries which is no more than £500, so a small claim.


Further info....

There was one enquiry outstanding that was quite important "There is a second area of land advertised with the property that does not appear on the registered title, can you provide us with the title for this area of land"

So the house has a second garden, but this area of land did not appear in the title plan we were sent by the sellers solicitors.


Now, after some further enquiries it seems the land is unregistered. Therefore, the seller does not own it or does not have legal rights to the land. The seller applied for "adverse possession" to the land in 2010.

According to property law: "This means showing an open intention to continuously occupy the land without permission and without challenge from the owners or their heirs."

SOURCE: http://www.findaproperty.com/displaystory.aspx?edid=00&salerent=0&storyid=20785



So, in the advert for the house, the following is clearly stated:

Tenure: Freehold
Popular Victorian Terrace.
Walking Distance Of The Town.
Two Bedrooms.
Re-Fitted Bathroom.
Re-Fitted Kitchen/Breakfast Room.
Lounge & Dining Areas.
Two x 100ft Gardens.
Garage & Off Road Parking.


This is quite clearly false advertising. I'm not sure what to do next, whether to just scrap the property and cut our losses or to make a revised offer taking this new information into account. At the least, we'd have to occupy the second garden for a further 10 years before we could start looking at getting a full title for the land. However, in the meantime, we can't really use the garden considering the information I've read:

"However, as the property is not in your ownership, either damaging or spending money on the property or land is very unwise.
According to the Land Registry, if the true owner appears they may take legal proceedings including claims for trespass and criminal damage, with the claimant potentially liable for thousands of pounds’ worth of legal costs."

SOURCE:http://www.findaproperty.com/displaystory.aspx?edid=00&salerent=0&storyid=20785



Any advise would be much appreciated...

Thanks,

System

If the seller applied for adverse possession what was the outcome. It was 2 years ago so there must have been a decision if he has claimed it through the proper route.

Or did he just fence it off in 2010 to exclude all others as the start of an adverse possession attempt?

Yorkie1

The EA will be acting on what the sellers have told them. It's highly unlikely that you will be able to prove that the sellers didn't tell them the full story and that the EA has therefore deliberately decided to misrepresent the picture.

I can't see you having much, if any, chance of success at court.

junglist_matty

!!!!!! wrote: »

If the seller applied for adverse possession what was the outcome. It was 2 years ago so there must have been a decision if he has claimed it through the proper route.

Or did he just fence it off in 2010 to exclude all others as the start of an adverse possession attempt?

I'm not 100% clear as to the situation, the garden is clearly used as a garden, it's an area of mown grass with some vegetable plots at the end and a composting bin.
Could it be the case the current owner is the registered keeper of the land? When I was told by our solicitors I knew nothing about unregistered land and looked it up after the conversation to get a better understanding... The solicitor did mention something about it being a 12year period before the land becomes a full title; can it be an unregistered bit of land officially registered to the current owner?
Thanks.

lincroft1710

Is there no clue as to whom the land could belong, or could have belonged, e.g. where is it in relation to the actual owned garden or other houses.

If the actual owner did appear on the scene it is highly unlikely "they may take legal proceedings including claims for trespass and criminal damage". They may want to reclaim their property, which if they were the legal owner, you would obviously immediately cease occupation (trespass), but a lawn and vegetable patch would not constitute "criminal damage". In any case you would have been unaware of the state of the land other than at the date of your first viewing so could not reinstate the land back to its original state, whatever that was.

bmar71n

you cant sue, but you can prosecute the agent under property misdescriptions act. The particulars are in no way binding towards the conveyance.

The agent isn't obliged to reveal all the information about the property, and it sounds like they just haven't mentioned that some of the land is in adverse possession.

However, what they have done doesn't appear to be illegal, just immoral

greenhill

The problem is, that the details state - "Misrepresentation Act 1967

These particulars are believed to be correct but their accuracy is not guaranteed nor do they form part of any contract."

phill99

There are two Hopes in your situation. And one of them is Bob.

junglist_matty

Turns out I mis-understood our solicitor... It was unregistered land, the current owner fenced it off, used it for 12 years and is now the registered PROPRIETOR for the land. According to what my solicitor tells me, we need to keep the land for a further 12 years before we can gain a full title to the land.