TA6 Form - Misrepresentation

Legacy_user

Hi all,

I have recently purchased and moved in a property that has private drainage. The TA6 form that was filled out by the vendor specifically states that the drainage system is a septic tank, which I am more than happy with living in a rural area.

The problem we have is after living in the property for 3 months, we have been told after an inspection due to it needing to be emptied at the cost of £700, that it is actually a cesspool that holds 5000 gallons.

The 3 monthly bill of £700 will cripple us financially and we have no idea how the previous owner has managed to afford it. We were never told of this and feel that we have been miss sold something that it clearly isn’t, as a normal septic tank only needs emptying annually at the price of around £150.

Is there anyone who has any experience dealing with a misrepresentation case? Are we in a posistion to seek compensation for this from the vendor?

After studying local drainage maps, it seems due to surface water run off drains around the property we would be unable to fit a septic tank because of the effluent contaminating it. Therefore we would need a water treatment plant fitted at the cost of between £10-12,000.

Any advice will be greatly appreciated and thank you for taking the time to read this post.

Kind regards
Eddy

da_rule

Is there any reason why the seller might have thought it was a septics tank? i.e. was it an estate sale or mortgage repossession?

Misrepresentation is extremely hard to prove. Firstly you’d have to prove that they knowingly ticked the wrong box (rather than just making a mistake). Secondly you’d have to prove that it was reasonable for you to rely on this without any further questions. So, did you ask to see the recent invoices for emptying the tank or enquire as to the frequency or cost? Also, personally, I would have had the tank surveyed (which would have revealed the issue) to ensure that there were no leaks etc. Did you have a survey?

Unfortunately in most conveyancing matters it’s a case of ‘buyer beware’. The seller gave you some information. The onus is really on you to investigate and test that information before proceeding.

G_M

da_rule is right... up to a point.


However, if the seller was, for example, a bank that had repossessedor an Executer of an Esate who had never lived there, then they should have stated 'not known' or 'buyer should rely on their own instigations' if they were in any doubt.


If they specifically answered 'septic tank', then you are entitled to rely on that information. I agree you would have been wise to have it inspected, but the purpose of such an inspection would have been to check its condition, not to check that it was a septic tank.


I believe you may have some come-back. But what?


If it were feasible to install a septic tank, you could perhaps claim the cost. If a Smal Sewerage Treatment System is needed, you could claim that cost.


But I guarantee this would end up either in court or with you backing down, as the seller is very unlikely to simply say "Sorry. Here's £12,000."


And there is no certainty of the outcome of such a court case.....

da_rule

G_M, my point about the survey was, if I instructed a company to go and carry out a survey on the septic tank, the survey result (and hopefully the somewhat confused surveyor) would tell me that what was there was not a septic tank (as well as it’s condition).

davidmcn

da_rule wrote: »

G_M, my point about the survey was, if I instructed a company to go and carry out a survey on the septic tank, the survey result (and hopefully the somewhat confused surveyor) would tell me that what was there was not a septic tank.

Indeed, it's pretty important to check where the outfall pipe is (and whether you have the right to have it there). If the response is "what outfall pipe?" then you know you have a problem...

da_rule

In terms of litigation, as G_M has said, have a go if you want to push the issue, but don’t expect the sellers solicitors to respond as they will probably advise their client to ignore the letters or will just forward them on as their file is closed.

You’ll probably want to take some advice in this matter (would suggest a solicitors form that deals with property disputes rather than a conveyancing firm). This will all come at some cost which, if the matter doesn’t progress to court you are unlikely to recover. Even if it does go to court, you’ll only get costs if you win and even then it may not be the full amount.

G_M

I agree entirely da_rule.

But you should not have to rely on a survey of the tank (sensible though such a survey would be for other reasons) to confirm whether it was a septic tank or a cesspit.

The seller's statement should be reliable - else what is the point of form TA6?

It is common for answers on TA6 to be vague or uninformative, and that is fine. But where the answer is definitive, it should be accurate.

System

Thank you both for replying so quickly!

The vendor had lived at the property for 20+ years. They were selling to downsize. When we viewed the property they told us it was a septic tank and had it emptied once/twice a year at a cost of around £100. They had it emptied before we moved in. They left us no record of the waste disposal or how much it cost.

On buying the property I was fully aware of the difference between a septic tank and a cesspool. If we were informed it was a cesspool we would of sought a reduction in price as these systems are not financially viable in today’s climate.

Ulitimately in hind sight I should of had it inspected, but I was lead to believe I was buying something I did not. In the TA6 form it clearly states septic tank “yes” cesspool “no.”

Is it worth seeking legal advice? Or is it time to bite the bullet?

System

Thank you for your advice, to slow at typing to keep up with you both ��

da_rule

I agree, a lot of these forms (and their commercial property equivalents) are more trouble than they’re worth. My point is that misrepresentation claims, especially in conveyancing matters, can be extremely costly to bring and even harder to prove. Plus you then have the problem of quantifying your loss.

I note the OP’s most recent reply which seems to show that the OP was also misled verbally by the sellers in relation to the cost and frequency of emptying the cesspit (and again that it was a septic tank). This is all good evidence, but they may be unlikely to admit the conversation.

G_M

In this case, quantifying the loss could be done in one of two ways:


1) written quotes from (3?) installers for conversion to a Small Treatment System, together with a report (from Environe=ment Agency? a surveyor? a regulated installer?) stating that a septic tank complying with the (new 2015) regulations could not be legally installed.

2) written quotes, adjusted forward for inflation, for the cost of 3-monthly (or more frequent?) emptying of the cesspit for whatever period of occupation you envisage, less the cost of annual septic tank emptying.


A further point: the new 2015 regulations require :

If a property is sold, the operator must give the new operator a written notice stating that a
small sewage
discharge is being carried out, and giving a description of
the waste water system and its maintenance
requirements.

If this was not done, then the claimant's case would surely be strengthened.