is this fraudulent

frankie1star

My brother and his wife were in the process of buying a house in Norwich. Unfortunately, they agreed to an pretty impossible time constraint to complete the purchase within three weeks, which was very unrealistic. Agreed purchase price was for £550,000.

Carried out homebuyers survey, and the solicitors discovered a right of way that hadnt been resolved previously, and there was a possibility that the right of way could have been enforced. They looked at indemnities, but were advised legally they were not the way to go. Vendors had to resolve with person who had right of way. Cut a long story short the deal fell through costing my brother over 2k.

Vendors recently wrote to him saying they knew it was cheeky but they were going to re-list the house but had to have a HIP so could they have my brothers searches and survey.

He replied telling them the costs he incurred. However, the vendors seem to be enraged saying that he pulled out and it cost them thousands. My brother did not pull out, he was willing to wait for the problem to be resolved.

Anyway to cut a long story short, if they relist the house is that fradulent, knowing there is a right of way issue, if a purchaser gets to the point where my brother got to and incurred such costs.

Any advice would be gratefully received

knuckledragger

caveat emptor?

CB1979_2

there you go:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=588715

keep your eye on that thread there.

Doozergirl

That's a can of worms well and truly opened!

As it stands, no. If the other poster's court case ever comes to light (after they've been laughed out of the police station tomorrow morning) then you can watch the reslut closely.

Are you sure something can't be done to retrieve the sale?

Was your brother simply not happy to have the possibility of the right of way there? If it wasn't him, then I can't really imagine a mortgage company being that bothered about a right of way, they happen all the time. Sounds more like a solicitor with a bee in their bonnet. I'd have had a straight chat with the appropriate neighbour/party if I was that worried and an indemnity wasn't available

Debt_Free_Chick

frankie1star wrote: »

Anyway to cut a long story short, if they relist the house is that fradulent, knowing there is a right of way issue, if a purchaser gets to the point where my brother got to and incurred such costs.

Any advice would be gratefully received

Re-listing the house is not fraudulent, even if the right of way still exists. And if it does, details about rights of way (I assume this is a private right of way or an "easement"?) are optional for HIPs, anyway - so it doesn't need to be disclosed up front. If it's a Public right of way, it will presumably show up on the local searches and they simply have to be put into the HIP.

But we don't know if the easement issue has been resolved with the neighbour, do we? It might have been

It is for buyers to find out about all these issues, which is generally why we use solicitors.

How the sellers conduct themselves with a new buyer is matter for those two parties and nothing to do with anyone else. But not "owning up" to certain issues when you sell is not fraudulent - unless the seller is asked a straight question, outright and knowingly and deliberately lies about it.

HTH

Generali

knuckledragger wrote: »

caveat emptor?

Surely caveat vendor!