Vendors lied to solicitors

TamsinC

So bit of a long story. We completed on our house mid Sept and it was a hassle with the vendors from hell. They left a load of rubbish in the garden which we had had them agree to remove through the solicitors. We are in dispute with them though the solicitors over this - it's a couple of skips full and a couple of days to manually remove. to the skips at least.

More seriously - we refused to exchange until we had confirmation through the solicitors that the render and pointing on the house WASN'T cement. The response was that is was lime. Hard to see as under the sandtex they put on. They understood if the render and pointing was cement that we would reduce our offer. We have just had a man in to look at the render and he is taking a sample away for testing officially, [the vendors would not have allowed this to happen before exchange] and is fairly certain it is cement. I have informed our solicitors that should the results come back as positive we want compensation.

Is there a hope in hell we will 'win'?

G_M

Depending exactly what they said, and how (eg verbally? within the contract? in written replies to formal Enquiries?) then yes it sounds like you'd have a case.


I imaging you could claim the cost to you of removing the render and replacing it with a lime-based one (plus legalcosts of course)

TamsinC

Thanks G_M, Firstly it was verbally to us, then via email to the estate agent - but then we deliberately also included it in the formal enquiries via the solicitors. ON the day of exchange they hadn't answered satisfactorily so our solicitor went back to their solicitor to confirm [not sure if she got it in writing - but it was solicitor to solicitor] and we were told that there was NO cement render or pointing it was all lime. Our solicitor asked us if it was a deal breaker and we said it would be, we would renegotiate on price if it was there. I haven't seen the written replies to enquiries yet - I have asked.

Will we need to go via other solicitors or will our house buying ones do it?

G_M

TamsinC wrote: »

Thanks G_M, Firstly it was verbally to us, then via email to the estate agent - but then we deliberately also included it in the formal enquiries via the solicitors. ON the day of exchange they hadn't answered satisfactorily

ignore. Meaningless



so our solicitor went back to their solicitor to confirm [not sure if she got it in writing

Critical. Find out

- but it was solicitor to solicitor] and we were told that there was NO cement render or pointing it was all lime. Our solicitor asked us if it was a deal breaker and we said it would be, we would renegotiate on price if it was there. I haven't seen the written replies to enquiries yet - I have asked.

You'll have to wait and see then.
Worst case, if your solicitor failed to get it in writing then you could sue your soliitor instead! (Assuming you have HIS confirmaTion in writing......)


Will we need to go via other solicitors or will our house buying ones do it?

I would start with your conveyancer. He could write to the sellers laying out what was agreed, what you can now prove, and your costs.. If they respond positively - job done.


If that does not work you can either sue yourself (Small Claims) to keepcosts down, or find a litigation solicitor. Most conveyancing solicitors don't do litigation, though they may refer you to another solicitor in the firm.

davidmcn

Did they warrant it's not cement? Or "to the best of our knowledge and belief, it's not cement"? Was the work done by them?

steampowered

The key thing is to establish exactly what you or your solicitors were told.

If it was done through solicitors/conveyancers, ask your solicitor/conveyancer to send you a copy of exactly what they were told.

Ideally, you would want an email from the seller or their solicitors/conveyancer or a statement in the responses to enquiries clearly confirming that the material wasn't cement.

If you have that, then it sounds like you would have a strong case for bringing a claim against the sellers on the basis of fraudulent misrepresentation.

If you don't have something as clear as that, then the legal analysis becomes a bit less clear, as you might have difficulty proving that you were told verbally that the material is not cement.

teneighty

I'm curious how the OP is going to quantify their loss? Is a house with cement render and pointing worth less than a house with lime render and pointing? I seriously doubt it but I'm intrigued to learn the answer.

eddddy

teneighty wrote: »

I'm curious how the OP is going to quantify their loss? Is a house with cement render and pointing worth less than a house with lime render and pointing? I seriously doubt it but I'm intrigued to learn the answer.

Assuming it's a breach of contract (i.e. the contract stated that the render was lime), the legal remedy is to put the innocent party in the position he would have been in had the contract been properly performed.

So in this case, I guess the damages would be the cost of hacking the cement render off, and replacing it with lime render. (Assuming that's what the OP wants to do.)

chunkytfg

teneighty wrote: »

I'm curious how the OP is going to quantify their loss? Is a house with cement render and pointing worth less than a house with lime render and pointing? I seriously doubt it but I'm intrigued to learn the answer.

I could be wrong but my understanding is it could have implications regarding letting house walls 'breath' in the context of damp management

foxy-stoat

Lets cut to the chase....how much are you after as compensation for the house that you were mis-sold?

SmashedAvacado

eddddy wrote: »

Assuming it's a breach of contract (i.e. the contract stated that the render was lime), the legal remedy is to put the innocent party in the position he would have been in had the contract been properly performed.

So in this case, I guess the damages would be the cost of hacking the cement render off, and replacing it with lime render. (Assuming that's what the OP wants to do.)

The court would not necessarily take that approach. Recent case law indicates that for example where a very particular specification of swimming pool was referred to and it was delivered slightly differently, there had been no loss, and notwithstanding the specification was identified as being very important, that was not enough for the court to award specific performance or award the sum required to rebuild to the correct spec.

This whole post begs the question as to why you didnt check the state of the mortar yourselves if it was that important. Most solicitors would advise against giving any warranties relating to repair or condition.