Potential claim against solicitor or our mistake?

Zoology_Dragon

This sounds familiar, have you posted about this before or was it someone else with the same issue?

silvercar

A genuine 4 bedroom property would be more than 15k more than a 2 bedroom property, so to some extent the valuation already reflects that it is not a perfect 4 bedroom. Without full building regs sign off the property is worth less, you accepted that when you bought so you need to realistically accept that as a seller.

Whatever the estate agent markets the property as, the same issue could happen with the next buyers. Some would say being up front with the issue would ensure another buyer doesn't pull out at the last minute, others would hope that you get a niiave buyer who doesn't raise a query and employs a solicitor who is not too cautious.

TBagpuss

saunaboy1975 wrote: »

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.

Ideally you would have witnesses who were able to say they recalled it being done, or that they have been visiting the property once before 84 and it was done then. Are there any neighbours who have been in the area long enough to know? (I I've just moved house, and chatting to my neighbour have learned when the chimney was removed, when the kitchen was done, when the bathroom was done and when the living room was last decorated )

You might be able to get a report from a builder or surveyor who could potentially comment on the likely age of the conversation based on materials used, way in which the work was done, etc.

Do you have any photos showing the layers of 1960 s wallpaper or anything of that nature?

saunaboy1975

Firstly, cheers for input everyone.

We bought it in good faith as a 4 bed, on the understanding that all had been done to ensure we could sell it on as such.

At no point did our solicitor say that it wasn't really a perfect 4 bed & that we would have to bear that in mind when we sold. We believed that the indemnity insurance was put in place (in the sols words) 'to cover us in case we had any issues down the line'.

That clearly isn't the case, hence my original question.

Also, the buyers sols claimed that the property couldn't be described as a 4 bed legally. They insisted on a re-classification as 2 bed, which hit the price. If this is correct, then why were we allowed to buy (and pay for) the property in 2007 as a 4 bed - and pay the going rate for a 4 bed??? Even with insurance. Surely if it wasn't legit to describe it as a 4 bed then this should have been flagged.

All doesn't add up to me & seems like there isn't agreement on here either.

AdrianC

saunaboy1975 wrote: »

Also, the buyers sols claimed that the property couldn't be described as a 4 bed legally. They insisted on a re-classification as 2 bed, which hit the price. If this is correct, then why were we allowed to buy (and pay for) the property in 2007 as a 4 bed - and pay the going rate for a 4 bed??? Even with insurance. Surely if it wasn't legit to describe it as a 4 bed then this should have been flagged.

There's no such thing as a "4 bed house" in law in this context. The only relevant legislation relates to the accuracy of descriptions - and it'd be the agent who'd be liable for the misdescription, legally, not you.

A side issue, but I really don't understand why the UK property market seems to primarily classify houses by "the number of bedrooms", rather than floor area.

Simple question for the buyer. Do they want your house or not? Sounds to me like they do, and they're just playing up on a relatively minor issue to try to knock money off the price. You have a choice... Play along with 'em and drop the price, or tell 'em that's the price and risk losing the sale.

davidmcn

saunaboy1975 wrote: »

We believed that the indemnity insurance was put in place (in the sols words) 'to cover us in case we had any issues down the line'.

I would say it does cover you in the sense that it provides something which is generally acceptable to buyers (particularly in the circumstances here where nobody really knows if or when your loft conversion took place). No insurance policy (or anything else) can absolutely guarantee that you won't encounter someone who isn't quite happy and decides to walk away.

Also, the buyers sols claimed that the property couldn't be described as a 4 bed legally. They insisted on a re-classification as 2 bed, which hit the price. If this is correct

It isn't correct.

saunaboy1975

If the insistence on reclassifying as '2 bed' is wrong then I have a solid complaint against EA for failed sale.

They revised sales particulars (website and documents) to say 2 bed without telling me & communicated this to the buyer's lender. Hence the reduction in lending amount & failure of sale. When I phoned them they said they'd had no option (couldn't explain why I'd not been told, however...).