Potential claim against solicitor or our mistake?

saunaboy1975

Hi all,

Brief summary of situation then a question...

1. bought property as '4 bed maisonette' in 2007. Was informed by solicitor that top floor (loft conversion done at undetermined time but obviously fairly old as it has an original oil burner on the wall & 50-60s wallpaper underneath newer covers) had no building regs.
2. Solicitor told us he'd ask for indemnity insurance in place 'to cover us in case we ever had any problems'. We loved the place & went for it.
3. Now we've marketed the place as a 3/4 med maisonette & having bother. Solicitors are refusing to agree to the classification (claiming it is only a 2 bed) & this is impacting value.
4. Our solicitor sympathises & 'can't see what the fuss is about' in terms of the regs.

I have asked the firm of solicitors who handled our sale to check the file in case of an oversight but they are dragging their heels. They have agreed to do it but in two months we've had nothing.

My questions:

1. Given that indemnity insurance only covers us if the LA asks for remedial activity (which they won't) then what was the point
2. If there is a genuine issue with the '4 bed maisonette' nature of the property then shouldn't our solicitor have flagged this??
3. Should I be thinking about chasing them for a negligence claim or was it my own naive fault? I have read that a claim can be made from 3 yrs from the point the issue was flagged.
4. ...or is there no real issue & given I've slept in both loft rooms happily for 7 years is there no real issue?

G_M

Who is claiming it is 2 bed? The buyer's solicitors? Estate agents? Mortgage lender?

Seems mad. However, whatever the artificial classification, if the buyers want the property (albeit 'bedroom + x storage rooms') then they'll have to pay the price you want.

saunaboy1975

Solicitor for buyer. They flagged it to the lender saying 'mind I think this is only a 2 bed'. Next thing was the lender dropping mortgage value 15k. Buyer pulled out.

Plus we found that the EA had got wind & modified their particulars to say 2 bed without telling us. We're complaining.

Property being relisted tomorrow with another EA & I want to make sure it's described in a manner that it will sell.

Buyer wanted it & was willing to pay asking price but panicked after hassle with their solicitors. They were genuinely put off.

G_M

My questions:

1. Given that indemnity insurance only covers us if the LA asks for remedial activity (which they won't) then what was the point
None (except possibly to appease a mortgage lender
2. If there is a genuine issue with the '4 bed maisonette' nature of the property then shouldn't our solicitor have flagged this??
No genuine issue, so no
3. Should I be thinking about chasing them for a negligence claim
No
or was it my own naive fault?
No
I have read that a claim can be made from 3 yrs from the point the issue was flagged.
4. ...or is there no real issue
Correct
& given I've slept in both loft rooms happily for 7 years is there no real issue?
Correct.

A stupid solicitor (buyers) and mortgage lender who relied on their solicitor. And buyer who panicked. Just bad luck.

If there are 4 rooms used as bedrooms, plus a living room (ie living room is not being used as a bedroom), then it is a 4 bed property.

If the conversion date was prior to The Building Act 1984 then BR were not required.

saunaboy1975

Many thanks for the info. The issue is then I guess, that this did manage to stop a sale to a buyer who wanted it. Plus convince a EA to be a bit naughty & change a description without our approval.

Also, how would we prove the pre-84 date? We have no documents to state when conversion was done, it's just obvious that it's old.

saunaboy1975

Issue was also that aside from panicking, the mortgage revalue meant they didn't have enough of this own money to buy the place.

davidmcn

saunaboy1975 wrote: »

1. Given that indemnity insurance only covers us if the LA asks for remedial activity (which they won't) then what was the point

It also covers future owners (and their lenders) if there is ever enforcement action - and therefore, in theory what you're providing shouldn't spook buyers, but in practice you'll find some who are put off by the fact that not everything is quite perfect. Doesn't mean that the market value is actually impaired though (which is what you'd need to prove for a negligence claim).

dimbo61

The upstairs " bedroom/s " do not meet 2014 building regs and neither does the rest of the property !
Is it a fire risk with no fire door to the third floor ?
If this was a rental property it would need a full smoke alarm system with interlinked smoke alarms and control panel, fire doors, emergency lighting etc

straas

dimbo61 wrote: »

The upstairs " bedroom/s " do not meet 2014 building regs and neither does the rest of the property !
Is it a fire risk with no fire door to the third floor ?
If this was a rental property it would need a full smoke alarm system with interlinked smoke alarms and control panel, fire doors, emergency lighting etc

I'd imagine the majority of the UK housing stock doesn't meet "2014 building regs"

saunaboy1975

Those were my thoughts on Dimbo's post.

Nothing in my house would meet 2014 regs (it is a 100 year old property that has been updated over the years, wiring etc) and generally in good nick - passed a survey recently anyway. But would be nowhere near 2014 regs ...and neither would any of the other 100 year old properties in the area!!

AdrianC

saunaboy1975 wrote: »

My questions:

1. Given that indemnity insurance only covers us if the LA asks for remedial activity (which they won't) then what was the point

The point was to indemnify you against the LA asking for remedial activity. If that had happened, it would have done the job it was intended for. No more, no less.

2. If there is a genuine issue with the '4 bed maisonette' nature of the property then shouldn't our solicitor have flagged this??

He did. He flagged up to you, on purchase, that the loft conversion did not possess BR paperwork. You decided that it wasn't an issue for you, and purchased anyway. Your buyer's solicitor has flagged the same thing up to them, and they've decided that it is an issue for them, and backed out.

It's not your solicitor's fault. It was utterly predictable from the get-go that not everybody would make the same decision you did.