Mis-sold property with issues. Please advice.

Conrad

The seller and your solicitor are the primary parties potentially at fault. The EA usually has the seller confirm the property description is accurate under the property mis-descriptions act.


The seller can be sued if it can be proven they has mislead you as to pre-existing disputes with neighbours.


A shared drive should have set off warning bells in your mind, basic common sense to have had this checked out properly by your solicitor.


You were irresponsible in that you did not take such steps or bother looking deeper into things, nor did you think to have a better survey which your lender WILL have offered.


The endemic compensation culture is pretty sickening really, what happened to self responsibility and using your grey matter?
Did you not learn as a child to be wary and cautious? I knew this by the age of about 5.

Annie1960

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Am wondering whether you could clamp the neighbours car when it is illicitly parking on your drive? Or possibly park your car blocking their access to get out of the drive?

Wheel clamping on private land was abolished in 2012.

Why don't you park your own car on the space they use? You have as much right as they have to park there.

tom9980

I am completing on a property shortly there is a small shared area on the close i am buying on, my solicitor without being prompted ensured no dispute has occurred and confirmed there was no ongoing maintenance etc being paid to maintain it. I would also suggest your solicitor should have been asking for written confirmation of the same.

C_Mababejive

People are inherently selfish. They dont like to share. They prefer to covet and/or to have exclusive use.

AdrianC

Annie1960 wrote: »

Why don't you park your own car on the space they use? You have as much right as they have to park there.

...or as little...

sleepymans

melb wrote: »

why should anyone have to put up with some bully deciding that they will park where they want whether or not it inconveniences anyone else? presumably if all the householders along the street took the same attitude there would be chaos. Estate agents will say anything to sell a house. surveyors put in minimum effort and take no responsibility for what they put in their surveys - they do not appear to be accountable. Vendors will lie through their teeth to sell their problem property. So all in all it is a case of caveat emptor but really shouldn't as that is why we pay solicitors to deal with the purchase.

Agree with this.

However it would appear the seller lied on the disclosure form therefore you should have redress (assuming you are able to document and evidence the dispute they had??)

Best of luck
S

DaftyDuck

Re re the neighbour dispute, in post #10, the OP says the SPIF was filled in with "NA on everything", or words to that effect. Now, that'd have raised my eyebrows, and I'd have queried it further. I don't say the OP should have understood this, as I think he's a first time buyer, but I would certainly have expected a solicitor to have highlighted these NA's, and either requested clarification directly, or have warned the OP of the risks of proceeding without clarification.

I haven't got one at hand at the mo, so I'm not sure of the exact wording...

If your solicitor didn't pick up on this, I'd suspect he'd not done his job particularly well.

kmmr

tom9980 wrote: »

I am completing on a property shortly there is a small shared area on the close i am buying on, my solicitor without being prompted ensured no dispute has occurred and confirmed there was no ongoing maintenance etc being paid to maintain it. I would also suggest your solicitor should have been asking for written confirmation of the same.

To be fair, the solicitor did ask this - via the SPIF form. There is a specific question about any disputes with neighbors. If the answer was "N/A" then that is a misrepresentation. Perhaps the solicitor should have dug deeper, but IMHO that "N/A" is a lie, and could be the basis for a claim against the seller.

The claim would be for the loss of value to the property arising from the fact that it has a dispute attached to it. Based on reading these forums and the gardenlaw forum there is a significant reduction in value and saleability.

I don't agree with the compensation culture, for example not checking the roof or clarifying the parking, but when a question is asked and a lie is given in response, I do think there should be recourse for the buyer.

rpc

Isn't the SPIF usually a tick box affair?

In any case, I don't see how the answer to a Yes/No question like "Have there been any disputes or complaints" can be Not Applicable?


Sadly, I'm not sure what OP can actually do. If they deny or restrict access (e.g. by parking their own car there) then they are in breach of their obligations. That leaves court who, after mucho dinero is spent, will first off probably just tell the neighbour to behave.

I suppose you could always paint lines on the drive or put up "No parking" signs and seek to charge the neighbour for parking where they aren't allowed to by following the proper procedure for issuing a parking charge notice.

time2deal

I think it has a section for additional info. The vendor may have hand written 'na' in those boxes - i've seen it a lot on auction properties when they put 'unknown'.

There are two issues here. One is the current parking problem which is probably going to be ongoing, and the sperate court action against the seller for the possible fraud. Even if OP accepts the parking situation with the neighbour, s/he is still entitled to get compensation from the seller for the reduction in value of the property.

It's all a bit risky, court action often is, but the alternative seems pretty unpalatable to me. It's not like some disputes over 'the principle' which can be nasty and never ending, but feels like a real problem that needs addressing, and that I suspect the OP wouldn't have bought if s/he knew.