Can we sue our vendor for misrepresentation?

marksoton

Alderbank wrote: »

I wouldn't be amazed, Mark. I have had some professional involvement with this. Footpaths are not designed to carry the weight of vehicles and a 'proper' dropped kerb includes hidden reinforcement to prevent damage to drains and other services running under the pavement. Customers baulk at the cost and get a cowboy job done instead (I'm not saying any of your jobs were substandard, Mark).

This was a brownfield site - a building stood there before, hence the 'historic rights' claim. It sounds like both builder and architect saw the unofficial dropped kerb and just assumed it was pukka.

Was the vendor negligent? He was asked a direct question and gave a direct (wrong) answer.
Should the buyer have seen the dropped kerb and raised the issue of access to the off-road parking with his solicitor? No one wants to get caught out by a ransom strip

I should hope not! :eek:

ugm1dak

davidmcn wrote: »

What exactly was your solicitor's advice?

They initially said they were waiting on some queries before we could complete. They then said they were all "fine" and we could proceed. They sent us a copy of the letters between our solicitor and the vendor's. Our solicitor had stated "can you confirm the kerbs are dropped to allow access to off-street parking". Their solicitor replied "our vendor confirms the kerbs are dropped".

AdrianC

ugm1dak wrote: »

At the time of purchase we noticed the drive did not have a conventional dropped kerb. It straddles what looks like an old access road and can easily we driven over. We asked our solicitor to query this with the vendor. The builder and architect both replied that there was historical vehicular access to the site, the kerbstones were level with the road and no dropped kerb is required. We have this in writing and our solicitor implied there was no problem. I tried to clarify with the council directly before purchase but they never got back to us.

Do we have any comeback with the vendor as they have essentially lied to us...

No, they haven't "lied".

You were well aware of the current situation.
You asked a question about the formality of the current situation.
The vendor answered to the best of their knowledge - and went above and beyond that, with professional opinions in writing to back that up. Your own legal advice was that this was adequate.
You then decided you didn't need to wait for the council's reply, and went ahead with the exchange and completion based upon the answers you'd received to your question.

Nobbie1967

ugm1dak wrote: »

They initially said they were waiting on some queries before we could complete. They then said they were all "fine" and we could proceed. They sent us a copy of the letters between our solicitor and the vendor's. Our solicitor had stated "can you confirm the kerbs are dropped to allow access to off-street parking". Their solicitor replied "our vendor confirms the kerbs are dropped".

That sounds a rather vague question from the solicitor, it could be interpreted as just having a low kerb rather than permission from the council for vehicular access across the pavement.

steampowered

I think this would be a difficult claim to make legally. The fact you asked the council for confirmation indicates that you knew there was an issue.

I'm not sure what more the solicitor could have done to be honest.

Personally, if the cost will only be a £1,000, I don't think this is worth pursuing legally. It would only be worth pursuing if the cost or the damage to the value of the property is much more than that.

G_M

To me, your responses raise some doubts:

ugm1dak wrote: »

......The workshop had some sort of access but it looks quite narrow for a vehicle. However, it means there are flat kerbs next to our property.
that does not guarantee a right of vehicular access.

Interestingly the plans never had off-street parking included. It was originally mentioned but then taken out.
sounds like the planners, for some reason, refused planning for vehicular access!
However, the developer said they managed to buy land at the back of the property which allowed them to use space at the front, which was to be a garden, to be changed to off-street parking.
sounds like they did not get planning permmission for this change
They said this could be done under the original planning.
seems highly unlikely!
Again this is all in writing and was checked by our solicitor.

I asked my solicitor to check this specifically. The vendor replied in writing "we confirm the kerbs are dropped to provide access to the property".

This is a very carefully worded response! It describes the physical state of the kerb. It does not describe the legal rights!

Our solicitor had stated "can you confirm the kerbs are dropped to allow access to off-street parking". Their solicitor replied "our vendor confirms the kerbs are dropped".

As above.

As others have said - clarification is now needed from your solicitor as to the historic rights. It sounds to me as if this is based on little more than the fact that the previous warehouse had a dropped kerb which may or may not have been legitimately installed, and may or may not indicate a right of vehicular access.

Jhoney_2

^^^ this.
Sorry OP, but the replies were very carefully worded so as to be correct. I don't see any recourse from the vendor/conveyancer for you (unfortunately) as they can/will both hide behind what was written. Chalk it up to bad luck and next time check the checkers. Everyone makes mistakes, as did you in not waiting for Local authority confirmation.

It could have been worse as far as house buying goes.

ugm1dak

Thanks to everyone's replies. Hopefully we can get it sorted without too many issues. Everyone says buying a house is a nightmare and now I can see why!

iammumtoone

Surely the OP must have some comeback?

If not to the vendor then to their solicitors. The OP is not expected to be an expert in house purchases, that is why they paid someone for their services. The did the right thing by bringing it to the solicitor attention (the solicitor cannot be expected to visit the property) and the solicitor said OK go ahead! The solicitor must be in the wrong by not checking it out properly and advising their client they were fine to complete. (when it now seems they weren't)

HouseBuyer77

I think this is the issue:

our solicitor implied there was no problem

Which I take to mean they do not have a statement in writing from their solicitor to the effect of:

'I have reviewed the blah blah blah and conclude you are able to park a car in the place specified and that you have right of vehicular access to this place from the road'

I suspect the solicitor in their correspondence will have been more vague, probably suggesting that full confirmation is obtained from the council (which is what OP was in the process of doing).

Maybe the solicitor should have been more explicit here but you can't sue someone for just being a bit poor at their job.