Lying on SPIF

eddddy

ognum wrote: »

...
What outcome are you looking for, apology, monetary compensation or something else?
...

That's obviously for the OP to answer. But one possibility is that the OP does not want to live in that environment and would not have bought the house, if the vendor had represented the facts honestly.

So the OP could claim for the cost of moving to another house, plus any loss from reselling the house - with the disputes declared.

It's very rare that these cases get to court, but the loss in value of the house, and hence the damages claims, can be significant.

Here's examples of a couple of cases that reached court:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/04/law.property

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9129178/Homeowner-demands-compensation-for-neighbour-from-hell.html

n_s_simpson

Hi, just to answer a couple of parts:


The solicitor tells me that they can't get the police to disclose their records without a court order and that's not covered under my policy. To quote him, "it's circular" because they need evidence before they'll fund the case but it'll cost money to obtain evidence.


Although I currently have no issues with my neighbour we'd have to disclose the issue on the SPIF thus potentially making the house harder to sell and reducing the amount we'll get for it.


I also can not abide being lied to and feel that my mental health will be bolstered by knowing they've been brought to justice.


Cheers


Nick

DaftyDuck

You have no dispute with the neighbour, so nothing to declare, so no drop in price on sale.

eddddy

DaftyDuck wrote: »

You have no dispute with the neighbour, so nothing to declare, so no drop in price on sale.

The standard questions on the SPIF are likely to be:

2.1 Have there been any disputes or complaints regarding this property or a property nearby? If Yes, please give details:

2.2 Is the seller aware of anything which might lead to a dispute about the property or a property nearby? If Yes, please give details:

I don't think the OP can honestly answer no to those.

Poppie68

eddddy wrote: »

The standard questions on the SPIF are likely to be:



I don't think the OP can honestly answer no to those.

I thought Q2:1 is only regarding the current owners otherwise
you would have to go back throughout the properties history.
I hear and have heard numerous accounts of court actions and arguements my neighbour has had with the previous owners of our home and the surrounding neighbours, i'm sure i would'nt have to recount these as it would be hearsay at the most.

and Q2:2 was about the property itself.
Isn't this currently and not previous to them moving in, as any previous issues have been dealt with and resolved.

n_s_simpson

I had to call the police out on her because she got the handyman to remove our side gate. It's all calmed down since the police went round and she got together with the handyman but it's too late for the SPIF.

ognum

n_s_simpson wrote: »

Hi, just to answer a couple of parts:


The solicitor tells me that they can't get the police to disclose their records without a court order and that's not covered under my policy. To quote him, "it's circular" because they need evidence before they'll fund the case but it'll cost money to obtain evidence.


Although I currently have no issues with my neighbour we'd have to disclose the issue on the SPIF thus potentially making the house harder to sell and reducing the amount we'll get for it.


I also can not abide being lied to and feel that my mental health will be bolstered by knowing they've been brought to justice.


Cheers


Nick

Well go for it then and sue the pants of who ever you feel fit, come back and let us know how you feel at the end (months or years away) and how much cash you have made from it.

Your choice.

Eejay

n_s_simpson wrote: »

I also can not abide being lied to and feel that my mental health will be bolstered by knowing they've been brought to justice.

This is exactly how I would feel about it. I don't know why people seem to think that you should just accept that the person lied about something so serious. You said the neighbours claimed (I suppose they could be lying but it seems unlikely when the police have said a similar thing) that the old owners moved because of the misery this woman caused - that's not some petty dispute that they've 'forgotten' to mention. I can understand that they were worried about the sale falling through if they were honest, but by lying they could have been inflicting years of misery on somebody else.

I wouldn't spend thousands of pounds pursuing it, but if you can gather evidence without spending much money then I'd say it's worth it. Cases like this will continue to be difficult if nobody ever stands up to the people who've lied - and they'll continue to get away with it. You could help set an example

Halle71

Eejay wrote: »

This is exactly how I would feel about it. I don't know why people seem to think that you should just accept that the person lied about something so serious. You said the neighbours claimed (I suppose they could be lying but it seems unlikely when the police have said a similar thing) that the old owners moved because of the misery this woman caused - that's not some petty dispute that they've 'forgotten' to mention. I can understand that they were worried about the sale falling through if they were honest, but by lying they could have been inflicting years of misery on somebody else.

I wouldn't spend thousands of pounds pursuing it, but if you can gather evidence without spending much money then I'd say it's worth it. Cases like this will continue to be difficult if nobody ever stands up to the people who've lied - and they'll continue to get away with it. You could help set an example

I agree as well.

Our buyers either lied on their SPIF or were incredibly stupid and declared there were 'no outstanding issues with building control' despite having built an extension, had a couple of inspections but never having had it signed off or received a building regs certificate.....

Our solicitor is also at fault for not requesting to see a certificate or alerting us to the fact that is doesn't exist and our case is being investigated by the legal ombudsman, but I don't see why the vendors should get away with it either.
What is the point of signing a legal document if you can't be held responsible for it? Their lie or mistake could cost us tens of thousands of pounds and/or lose us our current sale and purchase so why shouldn't they be bought to justice?

n_s_simpson

Now my solicitor is looking at other avenues and re-reading my insurance policy to see if there's another way.