House flood after exchange of contracts but before completion

Fruball

Any news re the house, Roger queen?

Roger_queen

Hi guys,
Sorry about the delay in updating, lots going on!
We have definitely not completed! Scary I know but no way do we want a property that is such a liability.
So, my daughter and her boyfriend have had meetings with their hot-shot lawyer( this their speciality stuff) and the up-shot is that there is a very good case for gross misrepresentation. In the last 2 weeks there has been ' ping pong' between the solicitors re this. We want rescission of contract due to the fact that they said that ' flood defences had been put in place, ie, " grass verges have been raised and culverts have been improved". We have written evidence from all local authorities that no work has been done at or near this property since the flood of 2007. Their solicitor hasn't provided any evidence to back up their claim that their statement has any proof, ( we think they are desperately trying to fingd evidence' ! ) however they are still stalling.
Will keep you posted.
Thanks.

jaybeetoo

Out of interest, is this house sale at the bottom of a chain of other buyers and sellers who have also now exchanged but can't complete until this sale goes through?

ruggedtoast

Roger_queen wrote: »

Hi guys,
Sorry about the delay in updating, lots going on!
We have definitely not completed! Scary I know but no way do we want a property that is such a liability.
So, my daughter and her boyfriend have had meetings with their hot-shot lawyer( this their speciality stuff) and the up-shot is that there is a very good case for gross misrepresentation. In the last 2 weeks there has been ' ping pong' between the solicitors re this. We want rescission of contract due to the fact that they said that ' flood defences had been put in place, ie, " grass verges have been raised and culverts have been improved". We have written evidence from all local authorities that no work has been done at or near this property since the flood of 2007. Their solicitor hasn't provided any evidence to back up their claim that their statement has any proof, ( we think they are desperately trying to fingd evidence' ! ) however they are still stalling.
Will keep you posted.
Thanks.

Call me cynical but it sounds more like the lawyer thinks they have a very good case to charge thousands of pounds looking for a case for gross misrepresentation.

Failure to complete on the contract is the most pertinent issue in this case here. You bought a house you knew had flooded recently and pulled out after you had promised to buy it.

Better hope this goes your way or this is going to get very costly.

GDB2222

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Call me cynical but it sounds more like the lawyer thinks they have a very good case to charge thousands of pounds looking for a case for gross misrepresentation.

Failure to complete on the contract is the most pertinent issue in this case here. You bought a house you knew had flooded recently and pulled out after you had promised to buy it.

Better hope this goes your way or this is going to get very costly.

I have not seen precisely what was written, but it sounds like there is a genuine argument. Hopefully, they will settle the matter, rather than going to court. The vast majority of cases settle.

RockOnZombies

Hi,
Just some helpful info for you guys.

There's a lot of people on here are saying that the council is responsible for looking after the culverts etc. You need to be aware that it is far more complex than that. Watercourses are regulated by the Land Drainage Act 1991, i.e. the council will be responsible for consenting or enforcing the removal of structures if necessary. Watercourses are also subject to common law and landowner have various rights and responsibilities, the EA have a book about it called Living On the Edge.

In this case someone mentioned that the council will have undertaken flood defence works, it is highly unlikely that they will have done so, someone else mentioned that the council could install property specific flood defences, the council has no responsibility in law to do this, it remains the responsibility of the householder. Even the EA has no responsibility, only permissive powers.

In regards to the culvert on the farmer's land, the farmer would be responsible in law no matter what he says or who put it in originally. Someone mentioned that if culvert capacity is inadequate that responsibility shifts to highways, this is most definitely wrong. Council's are not responsible for all culverts.

Assuming this is a small watercourse it is not surprising that EA maps show it as low risk, generally their flood mapping only shows flood risk where the catchment of the watercourse is above a certain size.

Hope some of these points help.
Cheers.

Davesnave

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Call me cynical .

OK. You're cynical.

Davesnave

Culverts can be a real dog's dinner when it comes to deciding who is responsible for them or what they may be used for. Title documents are often silent on the matter.

I have one on my boundary, and it's uncertain whether the responsibility for keeping it clear rests with me or my neighbour. Either way, it takes water from the road, overspill from the fields, and recently, water that's spilling from a road drain.:(

At some point in time, Openreach entered onto my land without permission or notification and decided to lay a cable down this culvert to one of their poles.

It's not very likely that anyone except the neighbour would be flooded if this culvert became blocked, so as far as I'm concerned he can look after it. I wouldn't want to clear it now anyway, as any attempt to use a digger would quite likely knock out the Openreach cable, with all the hassle that would cause.

katejo

I have read through these contributions with great interest and empathy with the buyers, particularly if they were given false info about the risk of further flooding. I don't think I would buy anywhere with a known risk of flooding, particularly after hearing recent flood news today. Someone's property has been flooded just one day after finishing redecoration following previous flood damage.
Just how much responsibility does lie with the seller to provide the property in the same condition as when contracts were exchanged?


I bet that the owners of this flooded property are cursing that it happened at this point in time before completion. If it had happened the day after completion, would they (their solicitor) have been sued (assuming that inaccurate info was given about flood prevention).

Fruball

Hi Roger queen

Hope you are further towards a successful conclusion. Please do keep us updated. This is a very rare story and I am really interested in the outcome.

Best of luck