Seller lied on the SPIF form. Their solicitor won't communicate with me...HELP

Becks045

I purchased a property in March 2007 and without going into a long detailed story I found out that opposite they are building a 5 storey block of flats. I found this out a few months after.

I am prosecuting my solicitor as he was aware of this but didn't tell me. Anyway thats another problem what I need help with is this...

The sellers on the SPIF form answered 'no' to any reason they are aware of why we shouldn't buy the property and 'no' to had they received any letters from the council in connection to the property or anything that effects the property.

I've found out that they were written to on 2 seperate occassions about the development (planning permission alrady granted now). Obvisouly you would consider this to be in breach of the SPIF. Also a 5 storey block of 220 flats, losing light, privacy and a sea view would be something you'd mention but they didn't bother.

PROBLEM. I have written to the vendors solicitor regarding the false SPIF form and they have written back saying they won't communciate with me on the matter.

I've written back saying I'm not appointing a solicitor and am dealing with this myself so please can they get back to me and they have written again saying they will not communicate with me. I have written back saying how can I resolve this but I've not heard anything.

Any advice on where I go regarding this issue with the vendors solicior? How will I get this resolved if they won't write back to me? I suspect that they hope I will go away.

Please can someone help me, I am at my wits end with this situation.

ashcarrot

you got legal insurance on your home insurance maybe going through that route.

Generali

If they won't talk to you, it sounds like you'll have to sue them.

Get a solicitor. There's a legal saying, "If you act for (instruct?) yourself you've got a fool for a client".

pinkshoes

Yup, get yourself a solicitor for this. It may cost money, but it'll be worth it in the long run! Can you not use the solicitor you used when buying, as they should at least be familiar with the property!

I was reading an SPIF form last night (it was in a pack of stuff from my sol I was sorting through), and i remembered your previous post, so did actually check the form. They would definitely have had to declare that they knew about the plans to build the flats on that form, and it's clearly worded so they would be aware that by putting "NO", they were lying.

IF (when??) they loose the case, won't they pay for your solicitor costs anyway?!?! Act sooner rather than later. Go and see a solicitor this afternoon (get a free 30 mins with someone) and get the ball rolling. Sooner rather than later. Take along copies of the letters you've already sent the seller's solicitor.

MissMoneypenny

ashcarrot wrote: »

you got legal insurance on your home insurance maybe going through that route.

I agree with this. If you have home contents insurance and have legal cover on it, sometimes called family cover, then you should have a soliciter for free.

Melissa177

What sort of price impact are these flats going to have on the property of your house? If you are suing for money, don't you have to demonstrate that you are out of pocket by them not disclosing this information?

I'm so sorry you're in this position. But I would think really long and hard about whether you want to go through what could be a five year legal battle.

pinkshoes

Melissa177 wrote: »

What sort of price impact are these flats going to have on the property of your house? If you are suing for money, don't you have to demonstrate that you are out of pocket by them not disclosing this information?

I'm so sorry you're in this position. But I would think really long and hard about whether you want to go through what could be a five year legal battle.

But isn't this the flat with sea views, that is now going to have nothing but a view of someone elses bedroom?!?!

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=526734

I'd say that would be quite a significant loss in property value, as sea view properties always sell for a premium!

If I'd just bought a property with sea views, only to find out that the view was soon to be completely obscurred, and THEN find out that the person selling knew this all along and depsite being legally obliged to disclose it and they didn't - then I'd be furious!

Debt_Free_Chick

pinkshoes wrote: »

But isn't this the flat with sea views, that is now going to have nothing but a view of someone elses bedroom?!?!

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=526734

I'd say that would be quite a significant loss in property value, as sea view properties always sell for a premium!

If I'd just bought a property with sea views, only to find out that the view was soon to be completely obscurred, and THEN find out that the person selling knew this all along and depsite being legally obliged to disclose it and they didn't - then I'd be furious!

The point is that you still have to demonstrate that you've lost money i.e. prove that you paid too much for the flat. Very difficult with property .... :rolleyes:

Debt_Free_Chick

Duplicate thread http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=562747

Actually, the third one on the same topic!

Melissa177

Righto, so if it's sea views, can you quantify the amount of money that has been knocked off your property by their non-disclosure?

I'm not saying "don't do anything", but I would try to analyse the situation financially first before jumping in all guns blazing. I have no idea how much money sea views add to a property, so I'd be asking some EAs who have a better idea. Then you can analyse the risk/reward factor.




As a child, incidentally, I grew up from the age of 6-9 in the knowledge that my parents were going through a long and protracted legal property battle. It had a terrible effect on my wellbeing as a child. This sounds like it could be very messy.

paddy's_mum

To the best of my understanding, there needs to be no tangible loss of any kind in order to substantiate a claim for misrepresentation, which appears to be what is going on here. The OP clearly valued his sea view, which will now be lost, and that development will almost certainly mean a drop in the value of his property.

In the most famous case of this kind (McMeekin v Long) the judge made it clear that the case was proved to his satisfaction since the McMeekins would not have even considered buying the house had they known the full story. No doubt, OP would say the same had he been given the truth of the matter before being induced to sign on the dotted line.

The judge described the problems, which concerned a right of way/access to the property as a "running sore of constant disputes and antagonism" and made it clear that the sellers had deliberately evaded giving a truthful reply on the SPIF. The amount of damages was settled out of court - £67,000 against an original purchase price of £124,000.

Only Becks can say whether he feels sufficiently aggrieved to pursue this through the courts but I too would be feeling that I had been cheated, tricked, badly done by and be after blood!