We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Can I claim under Section 75 for a land purchase?
Comments
-
Matt,
The value of a parcel of land varies dramatically on whether it has planning permission granted by the local authority to build a house or houses on it. A small field where there is no hope of ever being granted PP might be worth £3,000. Good value if you want to keep your pony there. That same field WITH PP to build 20 houses might be worth £3,000,000.
If I buy that land for £100,000 thinking "I stand a good chance of getting PP and thus making a 3000% profit", then I am gambling.
If the seller tells me there is a good chance of PP being granted, I would ask myself "well why doesn't he apply for the PP, and when he gets it he can sell the land for £3,000,000?"
And any prudent buyer would pay a valuer to value the land being purchased. And the valuer would say "this land is worth £3,000 and in my expert opinion there is absolutely FA chance you'll get PP on it". Of course if the valuer says there's a good chance you'll get PP, and you subsequently can't, then you can sue him for his incompetence.
Whereas if the seller says there's a good chance you'll get PP, then the best you can hope for is a nice letter from him saying he's obviously surprised and disappointed for you that he was wrong.
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you're saying, I just thought that what the OP said was that it comes with planning permission - but perhaps that isn't what was meant.
"My purchase was for a plot of land which I agreed to buy on the basis of a spoken assurance from the company that I would obtain planning permission for the plot."
"Would obtain planning permission" could be taken as the planning permission has already been granted and will be inherited with the land purchase.POPPYOSCAR wrote: »This is not the same as land sold 'with planning permission'. Land sold with planning permission has already had it granted by planning.
Depends how you read it!What will your verse be?
R.I.P Robin Williams.0 -
"Would obtain planning permission" could be taken as the planning permission has already been granted and will be inherited with the land purchase.
Depends how you read it!
I agree about the possible ambiguity. But surely that is exactly why as part of the purchase you employ a solicitor to make sure the PP had been granted, exactly what it was for, how long it was valid for, and whether it was transferable to you.Optimists see a glass half full
Pessimists see a glass half empty
Engineers just see a glass twice the size it needed to be
0 -
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you're saying, I just thought that what the OP said was that it comes with planning permission - but perhaps that isn't what was meant.
"My purchase was for a plot of land which I agreed to buy on the basis of a spoken assurance from the company that I would obtain planning permission for the plot."
"Would obtain planning permission" could be taken as the planning permission has already been granted and will be inherited with the land purchase.
Depends how you read it!
I have to disagree with you.
Would obtain planning permission can not be read any other way.
Land either has planning permission or it does not!0 -
Daisy,
Exactly as Poppy says.
The company selling the land isn't granting the PP so how could they offer that guarantee?
Of course the legal conveyancing experts that you would always engage when you are conducting a transaction like this would have told you that. If they didn't then you might have grounds to sue them.
....................:)0 -
I agree about the possible ambiguity. But surely that is exactly why as part of the purchase you employ a solicitor to make sure the PP had been granted, exactly what it was for, how long it was valid for, and whether it was transferable to you.
Agreed. That said, the absence of a solicitor does not give a seller carte blanche to be misleading.
Clearly none of us were actually there and don't know the exact words used, but if the OP was lead to believe that PP had already been granted and would be transferable (rather than an assumption by the OP), then they may have a case. I agree it wouldn't be straightforward to prove though.POPPYOSCAR wrote: »I have to disagree with you.
Would obtain planning permission can not be read any other way.
Land either has planning permission or it does not!
I'm not disputing it either has PP or not - just that "Would obtain planning permission" could be taken to read that the planning permission "would be obtained" with the land purchase. I.e. it has already been granted but "would be obtained" by the buyer along with the land.What will your verse be?
R.I.P Robin Williams.0 -
I'm not disputing it either has PP or not - just that "Would obtain planning permission" could be taken to read that the planning permission "would be obtained" with the land purchase. I.e. it has already been granted but "would be obtained" by the buyer along with the land.
This is a VERY tricky area of law, and again, as one I know nothing about, I'm not going to comment.
I sold my last property with expired planning permission, and the buyers had no problems re-submitting the extension plans and building the extension, however it was sold with expired planning permission, as I didn't want to stay there and didn't have the money to keep 2 mortgages running when this was being done.
Planning is a tricky area, and most of the contractual clauses will be down to specific wording.
We have a planning officer on the boards, who will probably be along soon.
CK💙💛 💔0 -
Usually written contracts contain clauses excluding prior representations and/or state that the buyer isn't relying on such representations. Ie the contract represents the whole agreement. This is to exclude the whole business of people claiming that certain things were/were not said. Land transactions are no different, though it is normal for solicitors exchange written questions/answers to cover such issues and these are binding.
That doesn't get a seller of land/property totally off the hook, particularly in the case of fraud.
Once you've decided that there is a misrepresentation (in the legal sense) then there is the issue of whether S75 can be used (see my earlier post) to join in the CC.
I think the OP needs to find a solicitor that specialises in this area of law or better still join a group of people in a similar situation and employ one. A normal high street solicitor probably wouldn't be up to the job. A specialist would likely be to expensive if individually instructed.0 -
You're looking at it as though it was a consumer purchase. With land transfers the principle of Caveat Emptor very much applies. It is the responsibility of the buyer to ensure everything they have been told about the land is true.Agreed. That said, the absence of a solicitor does not give a seller carte blanche to be misleading.
Clearly none of us were actually there and don't know the exact words used, but if the OP was lead to believe that PP had already been granted and would be transferable (rather than an assumption by the OP), then they may have a case. I agree it wouldn't be straightforward to prove though.
That is why you always use a competent solicitor to convey the transfer of land, even for £25,000, whereas you wouldn't dream of engaging a solicitor to act for you in contract negotiations when you're buying a £45,000 BMW from a garage.Optimists see a glass half full
Pessimists see a glass half empty
Engineers just see a glass twice the size it needed to be0 -
I'm not disputing it either has PP or not - just that "Would obtain planning permission" could be taken to read that the planning permission "would be obtained" with the land purchase. I.e. it has already been granted but "would be obtained" by the buyer along with the land.My purchase was for a plot of land which I agreed to buy on the basis of a spoken assurance from the company that I would obtain planning permission for the plot.
"Would obtain planning permission"
You missed the "I" when you quoted, which gives a totally different meaning to
"I agreed to buy on the basis of a spoken assurance from the company that I would obtain planning permission"
I don't see any ambiguity there.0 -
societys_child wrote: »"Would obtain planning permission"
You missed the "I" when you quoted, which gives a totally different meaning to
"I agreed to buy on the basis of a spoken assurance from the company that I would obtain planning permission"
I don't see any ambiguity there.
The ambiguity comes from obtaining PP from WHO - the seller or the authorities? 'I would obtain planning permission' could mean obtaining planning permission that has already been granted along with the land itself.
I'm sorry I commented now... it's surely not that difficult to understand. What will your verse be?
R.I.P Robin Williams.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 355K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.7K Spending & Discounts
- 247.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.7K Life & Family
- 262.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards