Seller Lied on Property Information Form and to Solicitor Enquiries - PLEASE HELP!!

davidmcn

Matt25 wrote: »

1 - Vendor has done alterations (such as moving bathrooms, but not structural) but claimed in SPIF's he hasn't done alterations, so our solicitors didn't even ask about any building regs. But when we will be coming to sell the house the buyers might ask for BR docs which can cause issues selling the house.

Yes, you'll probably be asked for such docs if they're picked up by a buyer when you come to sell (depending on how old the alterations are by then).

2 - The sellers might have done the renovation work themselves (as DIY) and they have not provided any warranty or completion documents.

Irrelevant, you wouldn't normally get any guarantees for this sort of work. The only paperwork I would expect to see would be to cover building regulations compliance.

3 - Vendor falsely claimed his house has always been a 3-bed (in response to solicitor enquiries) and misled us to pay much higher price than 2-bed properties in the road, which we later discovered are in fact exactly the same size. This is clearly a mis-representation as he has been living there for 10 years and should know the history of the house. We don't know whether we can claim anything against such misrepresentation in the court ?

No. You've got a 3-bed house, and paid what I assume is a market rate for a 3 bed house with all the paperwork. It's just the paperwork you need (and possibly additional work to make it comply).

Do I need to proof a "financial loss" when claiming against misrepresentation?

Yes, you don't just get a windfall.

4 - The fact that after completion the vendor disappeared all of the sudden and refused to give me his new address, is worrying and seems fishy.

Why would he give you his new address? People are usually easily traced if need be.

eddddy

In your position, I would do the following:

1. Ask your solicitor to contact the seller's solicitor saying something like:

"In the SPIF and replies to pre-contract enquiries, the seller said....
However, it appears that.....
Please explain this."

(Hopefully, the seller's solicitor should have the seller's new address.)

If you are unhappy with the reply (or you get no reply), discuss next steps with your solicitor, and if you want to take it further:

2. Instruct an local RICS surveyor to value the property 'as if it was as described by the vendor' and as it actually is. You can then start a claim against the seller for the difference. (i.e. properties tend to sell for less if they don't have building regs sign off etc.)

Or, if the conversion doesn't comply with building regs, you could claim for the cost of making it compliant, from the seller.



Obviously, you will incur legal fees, survey fees etc - but you can get these back from the seller if your claim is successful.

---

Edit to add:

If you would have never bought the property at all, had the seller been honest...

Theoretically, you can sell the property (perhaps at a loss), buy another one and move - then claim your losses, removal expenses, EA fees and and all other costs back from the seller.

But you might have to convince a judge in court, that you would never have bought the property.

And I suspect that your legal bills would start getting very high.

Doozergirl

ognum wrote: »

Would BR be required if the alterations didn't effect the bathroom or kitchen? If the work involved putting up a stud wall and putting in a door I don't think that actually requires either but I could be wrong.

Rooms need adequate escape windows. However many rooms you create, each need suitably sized and arranged escape windows/doors.

In contrast, moving the bathroom with stud walls etc. doesn't need the escape window. The only internal requirement would be for an extractor and a wash basin with the loo. Externally, adding to the underground drainage system would, but it sounds unlikely, given the apparantly modest size of the house.

If the OP bought with a mortgage, that would confirm whether the price paid was reasonable.

pinkshoes

Matt25 wrote: »

Thanks for your replies so far!


In this case it's an internal alteration so planning permission is not required. Basically our several concerns are :

1 - Vendor has done alterations (such as moving bathrooms, but not structural) but claimed in SPIF's he hasn't done alterations, so our solicitors didn't even ask about any building regs. But when we will be coming to sell the house the buyers might ask for BR docs which can cause issues selling the house. But if we leave it too long until that time, it would be too late to claim against the current seller.


2 - The sellers might have done the renovation work themselves (as DIY) and they have not provided any warranty or completion documents. The job looks clean but behind the walls we don't know how standard they are and whether they can cause issues to the property.


3 - Vendor falsely claimed his house has always been a 3-bed (in response to solicitor enquiries) and misled us to pay much higher price than 2-bed properties in the road, which we later discovered are in fact exactly the same size. This is clearly a mis-representation as he has been living there for 10 years and should know the history of the house. We don't know whether we can claim anything against such misrepresentation in the court ?


Do I need to proof a "financial loss" when claiming against misrepresentation? (in this case the "loss" is not realised as of yet, but is effectively the £60k that we overpaid compared to another 2-bed house available in the street at the same time).


4 - The fact that after completion the vendor disappeared all of the sudden and refused to give me his new address, is worrying and seems fishy.


Many thanks!
Matt

If this is about a lack of planning permission/building regulations, then if needs be (doesnt sound like it), then you can get indemnity insurance when you sell, or apply retrospectively.

If this is about you failing to do your homework, and paying £60k extra for a house where someone has moved some walls to get a third bedroom, then it is tough sh*t!

A quick view on Google Earth would have shown it was the same size/footing as other two beds. It was entirely up to you to do your research when finding the right price to pay.

A house is worth what someone is willing to pay.

Edit: the seller may have bought it as a 3 bed so perhaps had no idea it had ever been changed.

anselld

Matt25 wrote: »

Do I need to proof a "financial loss" when claiming against misrepresentation? (in this case the "loss" is not realised as of yet, but is effectively the £60k that we overpaid compared to another 2-bed house available in the street at the same time).

There is no loss, realised or otherwise.

As you stated the vendor did "major modifications" to convert from 2bed to 3bed. So it *is* a three bed and presumably your valuation did not throw any problems with what you paid vs the market value.

You must have know you were buying a small 3 bed instead of a large 2 bed given that the comparable houses on the street are presumably the same footprint.

You must have perceived it to be worth more than a 2 bed when you offered.

So, other than some missing paperwork you have lost nothing. You can still sell as a 3 bed with some missing paperwork which an indemnity insurance will cover, or you could get it regularised.

All irritating that you were misled, but not a hope of claiming a £60k "loss" or anything substantial IMHO.

davidmcn

eddddy wrote: »

2. Instruct an local RICS surveyor to value the property 'as if it was as described by the vendor' and as it actually is. You can then start a claim against the seller for the difference.

No, a surveyor is likely to say that it isn't mortgageable, and might give you a value based on that, but in practice anybody would try to get it fixed by obtaining an indemnity policy or retrospective sign-off - and that's your actual loss.

robatwork

You have employed and paid a professional in house conveyancing who should (...) know far more than random people on a forum.

What does your solicitor say about this misrepresentation?

eddddy

davidmcn wrote: »

No, a surveyor is likely to say that it isn't mortgageable, and might give you a value based on that, but in practice anybody would try to get it fixed by obtaining an indemnity policy or retrospective sign-off - and that's your actual loss.

If that's the case, that's what the surveyor will say in their report. i.e. it's worth £50 less, because that's the cost of an indemnity policy.

(But I very much doubt that is an accurate assessment.)

ognum

robatwork wrote: »

You have employed and paid a professional in house conveyancing who should (...) know far more than random people on a forum.

What does your solicitor say about this misrepresentation?

I agree this should be true but frequently isn't. OP did you employ a solicitor or a random conveyancing outfit?

davidmcn

eddddy wrote: »

If that's the case, that's what the surveyor will say in their report. i.e. it's worth £50 less, because that's the cost of an indemnity policy.

(But I very much doubt that is an accurate assessment.)

Firstly, I'm not sure how easily a surveyor could come up with a market value for stubbornly selling the house without building regulations, because there'll be nothing similar to compare it with - any seller would just get the indemnity policy. Or their purchaser would.

But even if they could assess such a value, the OP can't claim that's their loss - because they can sort it out much more cheaply.

Surveyors will normally just give a value which assumes that all the consents are available, it's left to you to figure out how much it costs to get the consents or indemnities.