Liability for incorrect advice.

AledB

I hope someone can help us with our dilemma, or at least guide us in the right direction.

After more than 10 years of searching, my wife and I have finally begun our lifelong dream of building our own house, or in our case converting a dilapidated barn. During the conveyancing our solicitor recommended a soil survey be carried out, this was done and the results showed there was no contamination to our relief.

Upon applying for planning permission the local authority required another soil survey be conducted which unfortunately found contaminated soil, due to this we were then required to have a second test including soil samples. The findings of the soil survey showed not only did we have contaminated soil but it confirmed exceptionally high readings of Arsenic and other pollutants which have to be disposed at in an approved site, this has proved extremely expensive costing us in the region of £30,000 and placing the development in jeopardy and resulting in heartache and unimaginable stress for us both, to the extent that we may not be able to finish the project, we are distraught.

Our question is whether we can claim against the original company who advised us the plot was clear of any contamination, to recover some or ideally all of the additional unforeseen expense we’re facing would allow us to complete the project.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

davidmcn

In theory yes, but you'd need to demonstrate that they were negligent in some way, usually by an expert opinion from another professional about the method they used to take or test the samples. They could, for example, just have been "lucky" with the locations they picked.

This is of course assuming that it isn't the second surveyor who's wrong!

Bermonia

Playing devils advocate I would argue that your additional costs have nothing to do with them (regardless IF they were negligent), as you were still at planning stage and still decided to continue with the project given the additional costs they would not be responsible for this - one could argue that if they told you that the souls were contaminated you would be in the same situation... deciding to cease or continue at the extra cost - which you have done.

davidmcn

Bermonia wrote: »

one could argue that if they told you that the soils were contaminated you would be in the same situation...

Not following you here - I read it as they purchased the site on the basis that the site was clean. If told otherwise then they would (presumably) have walked away.

bris

Need to get the facts straight. Was the first test done before or after the land was bought?


If before there could very well be a claim for negligence. But as above not all areas could be contaminated so pot luck decided the outcome.


If after then the work was always going to be needed so liability would be limited to the extent that the first test wasn't required in the first place as it was unofficial and always going to be irrelevant.

Nilrem

I'm going to guess that any negligence claim will rely on if the testing method or technique was not up to standard.

What sort of testing did you opt for and what did they advise?
IE did you get a single sample, a small number of random samples or a large number of samples?
Did the testing go for surface, deep or core? (IE testing a sample that might be from the surface to a meter down as opposed to just at the surface or a set depth).

One of my friends works in a similar business* and IIRC they do multiple samples (sometimes every few meters or even closer together), as you can easily get some areas that vary massively compared to a meter away, although his line of work tends to be more finding out if the soil will support something and contamination will be even more varied.

Probably one of the most obvious examples of this you'll see on a regular basis if car parking, if you have a spot that has been used to park a car on for any length of time there is a good chance it'll get contaminated with oil (especially if it was in use in say the 70's**), yet less than a meter to the side it could be clean.
Whilst if an area had been in use for loading certain materials you can find spillage around the loading area, or in ex industrial sites where things were stored, even artists, printers and make up materials from certain era's can lead to nasty clean ups and because of the old site layouts you might test large parts of the site and be fine, then find very high concentrations in a small area (and decreasing levels for a few meters around it).

I suspect the company that did the testing will be regulated by a professional body, and insured against malpractice, but it will require proving they failed in their professional duty, which could be hard (especially if for example you went for a cheaper testing option with fewer samples).

*His response to an American bridge that collapsed due to lack of checks on the soil they were building it on was something like "yeah, that's what we're meant to stop and why we get paid".

**You seem to get a lot fewer cars leaking oil these days as IIRC it's an instant fail at the mot and cars tend to be newer/replaced more frequently.

stragglebod

for £30k you should be getting proper advice from a solicitor, not relying on random strangers on an internet forum.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

AledB wrote: »

I hope someone can help us with our dilemma, or at least guide us in the right direction.

After more than 10 years of searching, my wife and I have finally begun our lifelong dream of building our own house, or in our case converting a dilapidated barn. During the conveyancing our solicitor recommended a soil survey be carried out, this was done and the results showed there was no contamination to our relief.

Upon applying for planning permission the local authority required another soil survey be conducted which unfortunately found contaminated soil, due to this we were then required to have a second test including soil samples. The findings of the soil survey showed not only did we have contaminated soil but it confirmed exceptionally high readings of Arsenic and other pollutants which have to be disposed at in an approved site, this has proved extremely expensive costing us in the region of £30,000 and placing the development in jeopardy and resulting in heartache and unimaginable stress for us both, to the extent that we may not be able to finish the project, we are distraught.

Our question is whether we can claim against the original company who advised us the plot was clear of any contamination, to recover some or ideally all of the additional unforeseen expense we’re facing would allow us to complete the project.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

I am neither a solicitor or an architect specialising in derelict brown field buildings, and I doubt OP is! Thus, knowing this, I would not purchase a brown field site without the advice of a specialist architect before I gave it consideration. I don't think that a solicitor acting for a conveyancing firm would have specialist knowledge about brown field sites!

davidmcn

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

I am neither a solicitor or an architect specialising in derelict brown field buildings, and I doubt OP is! Thus, knowing this, I would not purchase a brown field site without the advice of a specialist architect before I gave it consideration. I don't think that a solicitor acting for a conveyancing firm would have specialist knowledge about brown field sites!

No, but they deal with them often enough to be aware that potential contamination is an issue and that the clients ought to be pointed towards people who do know more (which I think is all that happened here).

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

davidmcn wrote: »

No, but they deal with them often enough to be aware that potential contamination is an issue and that the clients ought to be pointed towards people who do know more (which I think is all that happened here).

The question is, did OP go for professional advice on buying a brown field site or a cheap guy down the road. I could say you need a soil survey, so could any guy down the road. But this is a brown field site, a bit more specialist than me buying a home from a recognised builder!

wesleyad

Although there are some consumer issues here, I'd say you'd get more appropriate advice in the house buying section