Fraud Act 2006 and Vendors who pull out

silvercar

bgwuser, I think you are missing the point.

The council have said that the work was done too long ago for them to take any action, therefore they don't need to apply for retrospective planning permission. In fact some councils would refuse to look at such an application. They wouldn't want to grant permission to something that could set a precedent for another homeowner. They wouldn't want to reject permission for something that they can't take any action over, so they wouldn't waste time examining an application that is to old for action.

Your sellers pulled out for some other reason, not this.

mystic_trev

OP

If you feel you have such a strong case find out if your Solicitors will take it on a 'no win no fee basis' I bet they won't !

Nenen

A_Nice_Englishman wrote: »

Here's a link to the Fraud Act 2006 .

Section 2 states:

2 Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if—
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a
representation as to the state of mind of—
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.
(4) A representation may be express or implied.
(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it
(or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device
designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without
human intervention).

I'm intrigued by this... irrespctive of the OP's post (no offence meant and still on topic but just trying to leave out particular circumstances and think about general principles) I'm left wondering if a whole host of buyes and sellers who 'make untrue or misleading representation ...that causes loss to another or exposes another to a risk of loss' might actually be held to be legally liable.

I've been on this board long enough (and bought/sold enough houses) to know that the advice has always been 'there is no redress to either party whatever the circumstances until contracts have been exchanged... even if one party simply changes their mind. However, the way our legal system works, as far as I understand it, something like this assumption holds true until someone brings a test case and legal presidence is set. If someone with a good case of deliberate misrepresentation (either by EA or buyer/seller) won a high court case, it is my understanding that this could radically change things for everyone! Does anyone have any expertise in this area?

A_Nice_Englishman

Interesting point, Nenen.

I think the difficulty would be in proving intent. For example, a buyer
makes an offer to buy a property which the seller accepts. The buyer pays for a survey but later on another buyer makes a higher offer and the seller accepts that instead.

The first buyer will have suffered a loss (the survey fee) but would have to prove the seller was dishonest in accepting his offer and intended to cause the loss and/or intended to make a gain for himself by doing so.

lynzpower

The first buyer will have suffered a loss (the survey fee) but would have to prove the seller was dishonest in accepting his offer and intended to cause the loss and/or intended to make a gain for himself by doing so.

I think its fairly difficult to prove that a vendor actively wishes the loss on the gazumped buyer, however, the "intended to make a gain for self" is self evident in a gazumping setting.

Im also interested in the legals of this, and actually think that there could well be a case.

I wonder whether in tandem with the EA act thi could be used.

the thing is with the EA act, there is no financial recompense to the plaintiff, only the fining/ struck off etc of EAs.

A_Nice_Englishman

Thinking about this a bit more, the representation made by the seller to the first buyer would have been "I accept your offer to buy my property, subject to contract" not "I accept your offer and will not accept any others unless you pull out" so it wouldn't have been false.

Nenen

A_Nice_Englishman wrote: »

Interesting point, Nenen.

I think the difficulty would be in proving intent. For example, a buyer
makes an offer to buy a property which the seller accepts. The buyer pays for a survey but later on another buyer makes a higher offer and the seller accepts that instead.

The first buyer will have suffered a loss (the survey fee) but would have to prove the seller was dishonest in accepting his offer and intended to cause the loss and/or intended to make a gain for himself by doing so.

I can see what you mean but I would imagine the counter-arguement could be 'seller made false representation when s/he promised to sell it to me (and no one else) for £x without telling me that this would only be unless/until someone else offered £x+y' prior to exchange. In this case I would think the vendor could be accused of making a misrepresentation that 'exposed another to a risk of loss.'

Many years ago we had an offer accepted on a house under the firm condition that the vendor was prepared to move out (she said she would willingly go and live with her mother for a while) if the new build she was buying wasn't ready in time. It was the end of February and we all agreed a firm date for 8 weeks to completion by end of April (as I was 6.5 months pregnant at the time and we were moving across the country due to dh's job). The vendor was certainly aware of our situation and confirmed the day before suveyor was due that all was agreeable to her. The next day.... THREE HOURS :eek: after survey was done we had a phone call from her EA telling us she had 'just' found out that the large discount she had received from the council on buying her house (it was ex-LA) was partly repayable if she sold before August so she was withdrawing from the sale.

Whilst it was plausible (if somewhat stupid and frustrating) for her to do this, something about the way the EA said it made me smell a rat. I contacted the local authority and they told me that she certainly would have been aware of exactly when she could sell the house without penalty as the regulations had changed recently (time penalty time had been reduced) and she had been sent a letter giving full details of relevant dates etc mid-January (i.e. 6 or 7 weeks earlier) the same year.

At the time we were told there was nothing we could do... we lost several hundred pounds and this was 20 years ago! :eek: I was so gutted that a woman (who had children herself) could do this to another woman, especially when pregnant... maybe I'm just too trusting but couldn't believe someone could be so immoral and dishonest. I would LOVE to have had the backing of the law for this sort of situation and so can empathise totally with the OP. I just hope someone will bring a test case to the High Court!

Nenen

A_Nice_Englishman wrote: »

Thinking about this a bit more, the representation made by the seller to the first buyer would have been "I accept your offer to buy my property, subject to contract" not "I accept your offer and will not accept any others unless you pull out" so it wouldn't have been false.

yes... I can see your point... that sounds logical! That one little phrase 'subject to contract' is a complete 'get-out clause' at the moment isn't it!

bgwuser

Nenen wrote: »

I'm intrigued by this... irrespctive of the OP's post (no offence meant and still on topic but just trying to leave out particular circumstances and think about general principles) I'm left wondering if a whole host of buyes and sellers who 'make untrue or misleading representation ...that causes loss to another or exposes another to a risk of loss' might actually be held to be legally liable.

I've been on this board long enough (and bought/sold enough houses) to know that the advice has always been 'there is no redress to either party whatever the circumstances until contracts have been exchanged... even if one party simply changes their mind. However, the way our legal system works, as far as I understand it, something like this assumption holds true until someone brings a test case and legal presidence is set. If someone with a good case of deliberate misrepresentation (either by EA or buyer/seller) won a high court case, it is my understanding that this could radically change things for everyone! Does anyone have any expertise in this area?

At last! Someone who realises there is a NEW law out there!! Intent does not have to be proved -merely the fact they made a false representation i.e. they said they had applied for retospective PP when they had not. AND the LA are progressing the application now as there is a need to regularise the problem. Thank you but we are off to the police station tomorrow as this is a criminal offence (and probably a civil one too).

Nenen

bgwuser wrote: »

Thank you but we are off to the police station tomorrow as this is a criminal offence (and probably a civil one too).

Good luck... let us know how you get on.:beer: