Misadvertised house - what are my rights?

polly83

In March I had an offer accepted on a house. At the time I was told that the hallway, that used to be a passageway, belonged to the house. After six months of spending hundreds of pounds on mortgage fees, surveys and solicitors, it turns out that the hallway belongs to the neighbour and they did not get formal permission to incorporate the passageway into the house. The owner is not willing to sort out the problem and is trying to bully me into buying the house as it stands. I put an offer on the house on the premise that the hallway was part of the property. Is this fraud and am I entitled to compensation?
Thanks.

Dan-Dan

polly83 wrote: »

In March I had an offer accepted on a house. At the time I was told that the hallway, that used to be a passageway, belonged to the house. After six months of spending hundreds of pounds on mortgage fees, surveys and solicitors, it turns out that the hallway belongs to the neighbour and they did not get formal permission to incorporate the passageway into the house. The owner is not willing to sort out the problem and is trying to bully me into buying the house as it stands. I put an offer on the house on the premise that the hallway was part of the property. Is this fraud and am I entitled to compensation?
Thanks.

Long answer - No , short answer - No

This is why the conveyancing process exists

googler

Who told you?

Guest101

polly83 wrote: »

In March I had an offer accepted on a house. At the time I was told that the hallway, that used to be a passageway, belonged to the house. After six months of spending hundreds of pounds on mortgage fees, surveys and solicitors, it turns out that the hallway belongs to the neighbour and they did not get formal permission to incorporate the passageway into the house. The owner is not willing to sort out the problem and is trying to bully me into buying the house as it stands. I put an offer on the house on the premise that the hallway was part of the property. Is this fraud and am I entitled to compensation?
Thanks.

Since uve not exchanged, just lower your offer. the seller could be desoerate to sell

brendon

Yes, you can pursue this under the Misrepresentation Act 1967, depending on what your contract reads. You can find more information at the following URL: http://www.firsttitleinsurance.eu/article/2011_q2_conveyancing_periodical_can_you_rely_on_what_the_seller_tells_you

Quoting from that page:

But maybe some help is at hand for buyers. The Law Society has just produced a new Fifth Edition of the Standard Conditions of Sale which are generally used in residential conveyancing transactions. The new edition includes a clause to protect sellers, but worded somewhat differently from the above. Special Condition 6 reads:

'Neither party can rely on any representation made by the other, unless made in writing by the other or his conveyancer, but this does not exclude liability for fraud or recklessness.'

This seems much fairer from a buyers' point of view. Written replies by the sellers can be relied upon - not just those by their solicitors - and if fraud or recklessness can be proved, so can oral replies. And what is more, we now have the new Conveyancing Protocol introduced by the Law Society in April. This is part of the Law Society's Conveyancing Quality Scheme, and use of the Protocol is mandatory for solicitors who are members of the Scheme. Item 24 of the Protocol states that further clauses are not to be included in the contract unless '...they are necessary to accord with current law, or specific and informed instructions have been given by the seller that inclusion of such clauses is necessary and that they are required for the purposes of the particular transaction.'

Have a look at your contracts. Unless they state that representations from any other than the conveyancer cannot be relied upon, then you have a case. If, instead, it says that only representations from the conveyancer are to be relied upon, you don't.

ValHaller

brendon wrote: »

Yes, you can pursue this under the Misrepresentation Act 1967, depending on what your contract reads. You can find more information at the following URL: http://www.firsttitleinsurance.eu/article/2011_q2_conveyancing_periodical_can_you_rely_on_what_the_seller_tells_you

Quoting from that page:



Have a look at your contracts. Unless they state that representations from any other than the conveyancer cannot be relied upon, then you have a case. If, instead, it says that only representations from the conveyancer are to be relied upon, you don't.

Assuming that OP has not exchanged contracts, the above does not apply.

Polly, just walk away from this one. Regard all the fees you have spent so far as well spent in avoiding buying into this problem. Possibly for a misrepresentation as gross as this you may have a claim, but it is a long hard road which has no guarantees and the fact that it came out in conveyancing means that the process worked for you and the scope for claiming is very limited.

Better_Days

Polly, ValHaller is right.

I know it is hard but look on the money that you have spent as outlay that has saved you money in the long run. This issue has the potential to be expensive and time consuming to sort out and could turn into a nightmare.

Earlier this year we found a property that we loved. Spent £400 on a survey and discovered that the property was non standard construction. We pulled out and the EA re-advertised the property at £100k less. That £400 saved us a lot of money and heartache. It was very hard to walk away from the property but it is all about making an informed decision and balancing the risks.

[Deleted User]

You can try Small Claims Court. Chances are you would win, although more likely the seller will just compensate you rather than going to court. That is assuming you don't want the house any more, if you do just knock 20% off the price and put in a revised offer.

ValHaller

DELETED USER wrote:

You can try Small Claims Court. Chances are you would win, although more likely the seller will just compensate you rather than going to court. That is assuming you don't want the house any more, if you do just knock 20% off the price and put in a revised offer.

It would be folly to go ahead with this deal until and unless the issue of the hallway belonging to the neighbour were resolved. If the current owner of the property excluding the hallway is a bully, the true owners of the hallway may be waiting for a sale in order to take action against a softer target. Steer well clear.

Dan-Dan

DELETED USER wrote:

You can try Small Claims Court. Chances are you would win, although more likely the seller will just compensate you rather than going to court. That is assuming you don't want the house any more, if you do just knock 20% off the price and put in a revised offer.

You drunk , again ?!

Tancred

polly83 wrote: »

In March I had an offer accepted on a house. At the time I was told that the hallway, that used to be a passageway, belonged to the house. After six months of spending hundreds of pounds on mortgage fees, surveys and solicitors, it turns out that the hallway belongs to the neighbour and they did not get formal permission to incorporate the passageway into the house. The owner is not willing to sort out the problem and is trying to bully me into buying the house as it stands. I put an offer on the house on the premise that the hallway was part of the property. Is this fraud and am I entitled to compensation?
Thanks.

You smell of sour grapes.

There is always a risk that you may have to pull out when you make an offer, this is why you should always use a solicitor who will allow you to insure yourself against this need. I pulled out of two offers before finding the house I finally went for - it's not unusual. You should always budget for three surveys when you buy a house, in the expectation that you will need to pull out twice.