Sale defunct at last stages due to clause in deeds - who's at fault?

QuerulousMoose

Hello all,

I'm a first time forumite in desperate need of answers.

The background:

In the process of buying a property, finally at the last stages with the deeds sent from their solicitor to ours, our solicitor emails us and at the end of the email mentions that there is a section 157 clause (a housing act which keeps certain homes for local people), unfortunately we don't come with the categories allowed so the sale has fallen through. End result we are left with a solicitors bill. I want to know who is at fault and legally how I can get whoever is at fault to pay for the bill.

Looking back through the properties adverts we found that the previous estate agent had mentioned the 157 clause, the agent we went through didn't, as far as we are concerned this is the first fault. The second lies with their solicitor, surely this should have been highlighted to our solicitor way before the end. Third lot of fault may fall to.our solicitors, should have been picked up in the searches?

Where do we stand?

Thank you!!!

theartfullodger

Deeds are usually available for £3 from Land registry online in 3 minutes.


Did you not check them yourself first?


The purpose of the solicitors and related process is to spot issues like this: I'd be pleased it was spotted before I completed, speaking for myself....

davidmcn

Estate agents and sellers' solicitors can only disclose what they know about - and I'm guessing they're not happy about having their time wasted either.

markin

The first fault is with the home owner, how can they forget something like that!


Is it something that can be removed now? Probably not.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/68/section/157




https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4895179/removal-of-an-occupancy-clause

eddddy

QuerulousMoose wrote: »

Looking back through the properties adverts we found that the previous estate agent had mentioned the 157 clause, the agent we went through didn't, as far as we are concerned this is the first fault.

If the EA knew, or should have known, about the s157 - an ombudsman might order the EA to pay you compensation.

You can ask the EA why they didn't tell you. But if they say it's because the seller didn't tell them (and they had no other reason to suspect an s157), I think that the Ombudsman would probably accept that.

The Ombudsman doesn't expect EAs to read through Title docs or to be legally trained.

QuerulousMoose

Quick one on this - sorry for the ultra late response btw - does our solicitor have any part to play in this?

Having spoken with my union solicitor they believed that they did, that it should have been picked up early in the searches. Our solicitor doesn't agree with this and says that there is no way they could have known until the deeds were sent over. Surely something like this would be highlighted in the local authority searches or the like? The property has been under the section 157 since being built back in the late 80's

davidmcn

QuerulousMoose wrote: »

Quick one on this - sorry for the ultra late response btw - does our solicitor have any part to play in this?

Having spoken with my union solicitor they believed that they did, that it should have been picked up early in the searches. Our solicitor doesn't agree with this and says that there is no way they could have known until the deeds were sent over. Surely something like this would be highlighted in the local authority searches or the like? The property has been under the section 157 since being built back in the late 80's

Did they have a local authority search? If so, do you have a copy and what does it say? I wouldn't expect it to disclose anything more than recent planning consents or current applications, not every condition from consents from decades ago.

Davesnave

Keep_me_logged_in wrote: »

Why does it HAVE to be someone’s fault?

Because it isn't something one could call an Act of God.

The cause of this abortive sale is primarily the failure of the vendor to disclose a material fact to their second agent. The fact that they used more than one agent sucessionally, suggests they had problems selling the property, possibly due to the clause.

However, someone was bound to pick-up the local occupancy clause before the transaction was concluded, which makes the non-disclosure understandably frustrating for the OP.

babyblade41

The only fault I can see here is with the vendor who neglected to say something, hoping no one would pick it up.

Thankfully your solicitor has and due diligence was done .

I always check title deeds before even viewing a property, making sure it is totally freehold and no other nasties lurking

No fault with the professionals here. EA's get a knocking at every angle but this time I'm not sure you can lay this one on them totally

Accept this has happened and something you can learn on the next property... 3.00 is all it costs from LR which can save time and money.

Davesnave

babyblade41 wrote: »

I always check title deeds before even viewing a property, making sure it is totally freehold and no other nasties lurking

I'm not certain the info would be in the title documents. The restriction on my property (not a 157) isn't on mine. Indeed, I'm not sure right now where it is, but then I didn't intend to comply with it anyway!

diggingdude

babyblade41 wrote: »

The only fault I can see here is with the vendor who neglected to say something, hoping no one would pick it up.

Thankfully your solicitor has and due diligence was done .

I always check title deeds before even viewing a property, making sure it is totally freehold and no other nasties lurking

No fault with the professionals here. EA's get a knocking at every angle but this time I'm not sure you can lay this one on them totally

Accept this has happened and something you can learn on the next property... 3.00 is all it costs from LR which can save time and money.

Wouldn't it be easier to view first and then check when you have an offer accepted before instructing a solicitor. That way you save money. Imagine if you had to view 100 properties before you settled, that's a wedge of your solicitors bill.

OP I would suggest you only have beef with the person selling the house. Could you take them to small claims and chance your arm that you might win/get some compo before??