Local Search Provider Gave Me An Incorrect Search Result

Michael_J

Hi everyone!

My first time here so bare with me:)

Long story short...

Ive bought a house back in March this year. On my first viewing, Ive told the estate agent that "no matter how cheap this house will be, no one will buy it because of the road". (the road looks like after the WW2 bombardment)

She then said to me not to worry as this will show up on my search report and I can take it from there with the Council.

As you can imagine, I was very keen to read the search report. On it, it clearly stated (+ a diagram) the road as "being adopted by the Council and maintained at public expense". Exactly this wording!

Reading this, I gave my solicitor the "green light" to proceed with the buying of this property.

After moving in, the first thing I did was to get in touch with the Concil re the road. Their response was "sorry mate, its not our road"

After a few emails back and forth with the Council, an engineer from the Highways dep. reply to me saying he has checked everyting and road definitely is not theirs.

Ive then got back to my solicitor who put me in touch with someone at the "post sale" department who started an investigation.

Now, in July, Ive just got a response from them saying that the Search Provider gave me an incorrect report. They also sent me a new search report where clearly states that the road fronting my property is not adopted and consequently not maintainable at public expense.

Also, they are advising me to get in touch with the Search Provider for any complaints I may have.

Well, as you can imagine I do have.

Thing is, I wouldnt have bought the house had I known the road fronting the property is not adopted by the Concil. This road was a deal breaker. The only reason Ive gone throu and bought the house is because I was happy with the informations found in the local search report.

Another thing to mention is that the guy from the "post sale" dep said twice, in writing, that the search result is insured .

Any suggestion on this matter guys?

My opinion: the Search Provider is to blame.

Has anyone had any claim against a search provider? Any successes?

Any help would be much appreciated!

Thanks!

diggingdude

what are you wanting? Not saying they haven't made a mistake but they are not going to buy the house off you so it comes down to numbers

davidmcn

Presumably this was via your solicitor? I expect they can give advice. In particular, are the titles otherwise fine in terms of giving you rights of access, liability for maintenance, etc? I expect your loss is whatever the difference in market value would be between the same house with either a private or public road, but there's probably a claim there (unless the problem was the council passing on inaccurate info in the first place).

Michael_J

Well, thats the Q.


How much can u ask for? Whats the purpose of their insurance, if not for this?



And why not claim the whole sum, if this is the house I dont want and I wouldnt have bought in the first place if I had known.


Also, what about the value of the house? Is it not cheaper if the road fronting the property is not public?



What about the lender? Didnt they based their decision on the same search result?



I mean, yeah, should I expect them to pay off the house? Maybe..

G_M

Did you insreuct the search provider? No- I thought not.


You need to escalate this within the solicitors firm. Look up and follow their complaints procedure. You paid them to do searches. They decided to sub-contract, and they instructed the search provider.


Now- what are you hoping to claim?

* for the solixitos to buy back the property from you? Not going to happen.
* to be paid compensation? How much? Maybe could claim the difference in value of the property with, and without, road adoption. Though hard to see how you'd establish that. Maybe start by paying an RICS surveyor tovalue the property on those 2 bases...?
* refund of legal fees, as they dd not provide the professional service you paid for? Hmmmm... possibly

Michael_J

davidmcn wrote: »

Presumably this was via your solicitor? I expect they can give advice. In particular, are the titles otherwise fine in terms of giving you rights of access, liability for maintenance, etc? I expect your loss is whatever the difference in market value would be between the same house with either a private or public road, but there's probably a claim there (unless the problem was the council passing on inaccurate info in the first place).

Yeah, the solicitor just wrote to me saying that the search provider issue a revised search report and that "it seems that by issuing a revised search result [the search provider] have acknowledged the original search result they provided was incorrect".

The only advice they gave me, was to contact the search provider or to seek legal advice

Michael_J

G_M wrote: »

Did you insreuct the search provider? No- I thought not.


You need to escalate this within the solicitors firm. Look up and follow their complaints procedure. You paid them to do searches. They decided to sub-contract, and they instructed the search provider.

Right.. so would you say I ignore the Search Provider (for now) and focus on solicitor. Basically, ur right. I did ask and pay the solicitor for the searches, not a 3rd party...

G_M

Michael_J wrote: »

Right.. so would you say I ignore the Search Provider (for now) and focus on solicitor. Basically, ur right. I did ask and pay the solicitor for the searches, not a 3rd party...

Yes.

Understandably they are trying to deflect you away from themselves, but the relevant contract was between you and the solicitors.

Interesting they are advising you take 'legal advice'. ie ask another firm to look into litigation.....

But I would start with their internal complaints process, and if that gets nowhere, escalate to the legal ombudsman.

https://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/?portfolio=complaint-form-legal

Davesnave

Where I used to live, houses on the roads with the bomb craters are much prized. The streets are deliberately kept like that, because the unmaintained surface dissuades others from using them as rat runs. It's also cheaper.

Just saying.....

Michael_J

Davesnave wrote: »

Where I used to live, houses on the roads with the bomb craters are much prized. The streets are deliberately kept like that, because the unmaintained surface dissuades others from using them as rat runs. It's also cheaper.

Just saying.....

Pros and cons..


Ive invited 12 friends for a BBQ and just 3 made it by car. The others, had to park 100 yds away


But ur right, and "cheaper" is the magic word. Bearing in mind the new circumstances, I dont think the house is worth the money I paid for.

davidmcn

G_M wrote: »

Did you insreuct the search provider? No- I thought not.

You need to escalate this within the solicitors firm. Look up and follow their complaints procedure. You paid them to do searches. They decided to sub-contract, and they instructed the search provider.

I don't think this is the correct analysis. The solicitor instructs the searchers, as agent for the OP. The searchers are liable to the OP for any negligence in their report. The solicitors are unlikely to have themselves warranted anything, they'll have reported along the lines of "the search says..."

If the original solicitor doesn't sound interested in pursuing the matter then the OP should probably consult someone else, but I can't see there's cause for a complaint or claim against the solicitor.