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

pinkshoes

bobsaint wrote: »

The wording of the SPIF is ambiguous. The words "affecting the property or neighbouring property" can be construed very narrowly and as it is the claimant's job to prove otherwise this is not easy.

Ambiguous perhaps, but then selling a property "with a sea view" whilst knowing a big block of flats was about to be built to obscure the entire view is kinda taking the p*ss.

If the sea view was not mentioned on the spec for the property or described as a feature, THEN it would be difficult to prove that it was mis-sold. I find it unlikely that the sea view was NOT mentioned during viewing the property!

I'm also curious to know how it turned out!

poppysarah

*but* that nice Martin bloke on Homes under the hammer says development near your property is good for you as it means investment in area and raises house prices.


I'm afraid I'm cyncial enough to know that even land marked as recreational open space is up for grabs by stupid blocks of flats.

Your best bet is to hope that they never build the flats and PP expires.

No rare newts on the land is there?

Neillgb

Don't forget that defendants have to consider the expenses involved in defending the case. Sort of the risk/reward in reverse.

Betting on a low 'no admission of liability, in order to resolve the matter quickly' offer from the seller here.

AMILLIONDOLLARS

Becks045

you say

I have sought legal advice and have a very good case. I have in writing that my property has lost value of £20k min.

In this current marketplace where property is losing its value, left right and centre, you'll now find it very hard to verify this in court. Please add up how much this case is going to cost you as there are a lot of ifs and buts involved.

AMD

bobsaint

pinkshoes wrote: »

Ambiguous perhaps, but then selling a property "with a sea view" whilst knowing a big block of flats was about to be built to obscure the entire view is kinda taking the p*ss.

If the sea view was not mentioned on the spec for the property or described as a feature, THEN it would be difficult to prove that it was mis-sold. I find it unlikely that the sea view was NOT mentioned during viewing the property!

I'm also curious to know how it turned out!

Thats a very good point but, I think, possibly separate to (and wider than) the SPIF point as it relates to the general description of the property. Possibly Property Misdescription Act?

bobsaint

Neillgb wrote: »

Don't forget that defendants have to consider the expenses involved in defending the case. Sort of the risk/reward in reverse.

Betting on a low 'no admission of liability, in order to resolve the matter quickly' offer from the seller here.

Probably disagree as the claimant has to jump through a lot of hoops to establish his case. I can see the seller dragging it out ! But happy to be proved wrong !

loveandlight

Becks045- This is serious. Send the solicitors who won't respond to you another letter asking them for details of their insurance company. Tell them if they don't respond within a certain amount of time you will immediately refer the matter to the court. Then you will see how quickly they respond. Also check your insurance to see if it's a matter your insurance company can take on board. Don't give up!

AMILLIONDOLLARS

loveandlight wrote: »

Becks045- This is serious. Send the solicitors who won't respond to you another letter asking them for details of their insurance company. Tell them if they don't respond within a certain amount of time you will immediately refer the matter to the court. Then you will see how quickly they respond. Also check your insurance to see if it's a matter your insurance company can take on board. Don't give up!

It's not the solicitors who are not responding, but the sellers of the flat!! The Solicitors have already found a way of this situation!!!!!!

AMD

Incisor

Becks045 wrote: »

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. ...

If your solicitor was aware, then you may well be deemed to be aware, letting the vendors off the hook altogether.

AMILLIONDOLLARS

bobsaint wrote: »

Thats a very good point but, I think, possibly separate to (and wider than) the SPIF point as it relates to the general description of the property. Possibly Property Misdescription Act?

I don't think the OP can go on the basis of a Property Misdescription Act? because at the time of purchasing the property, it did have a sea view. The argument would be how long did they expect to keep it? Now after the horse has bolted the OP has now done her research and found a wealth of information which has been easily accessible concerning this build. The sellers may not have declared the information on the form, but it was out in the public domain for all to see. Becks045 may well end up spending 20k and not proof their case.

AMD