Noise complaint from neighbour who assaulted me

aroominyork

k3lvc wrote: »

Yes - the part at the top of the form under 'sellers obligations' warning you not to give incorrect or incomplete information or risk claim for compensation/refusal to complete

But what question would I not be answering? There is no question about personal altercations with neighbours, only about disputes related to the property.

k3lvc

aroominyork wrote: »

But what question would I not be answering? There is no question about personal altercations with neighbours, only about disputes related to the property.

OK - potential buyer (and all theoretical as you're not selling) reads your answer re guttering and asks what happened next - how are you going to answer ?


Whether your neighbours response was justified or not your gutter leaked (and continued to leak) causing issues - you're on a sticky moral high-ground. What if the boot were on the other foot and you moved into a property and then found that the full nature of the dispute hadn't been disclosed ?

ashe

Can confirm this. Anything where you have been in touch with police or council, taken then to court, disputed boundaries etc is all valid. We had similar neighbour issues where a bunch of low life’s were telling the police I was a pedo because I filmed their kids bashing the crap out of my property and garden, solicitor said we had to declare it on the form. Stroke of luck that they moved out the day before the form arrived!!

Anyway. If you ignore advice and don’t add it to the form they can comeback to you via courts and you may have to revoke the sale to them. There’s been a few cases where this has happened, e.g;

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2003/mar/04/property.homebuying

aroominyork

k3lvc wrote: »

OK - potential buyer (and all theoretical as you're not selling) reads your answer re guttering and asks what happened next - how are you going to answer ?

I would say we had the guttering fixed, we believe it is sound and that the survey will confirm whether that is the case. Incidentally, I spoke this week with his tenant who occupies part of the building close to the guttering and he has never been disturbed by it.

k3lvc wrote: »

Whether your neighbours response was justified or not your gutter leaked (and continued to leak) causing issues - you're on a sticky moral high-ground. What if the boot were on the other foot and you moved into a property and then found that the full nature of the dispute hadn't been disclosed ?

I am asking about legalities, not the morals of the situation. So it is not about whether I would want to know about the neighbour if I were in a purchaser's boots - it's about whether any information was withheld that should be disclosed, and from my reading of TA6 I would not be withholding any such information.

aroominyork

ashe wrote: »

Can confirm this. Anything where you have been in touch with police or council, taken then to court, disputed boundaries etc is all valid. We had similar neighbour issues where a bunch of low life’s were telling the police I was a pedo because I filmed their kids bashing the crap out of my property and garden, solicitor said we had to declare it on the form. Stroke of luck that they moved out the day before the form arrived!!

Anyway. If you ignore advice and don’t add it to the form they can comeback to you via courts and you may have to revoke the sale to them. There’s been a few cases where this has happened, e.g;

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2003/mar/04/property.homebuying

Thanks - I'll take advice but the case in The Guardian link was about disputed access rights so directly linked to property rather than personality issues.

NewShadow

aroominyork wrote: »

Thanks - I'll take advice but the case in The Guardian link was about disputed access rights so directly linked to property rather than personality issues.

*cough*

I might suggest 17 windows being smashed relates to 'the property' - and is certainly a disclosure which would lead to me asking for explanatory details if I were a prospective buyer...

aroominyork

NewShadow wrote: »

*cough*

I might suggest 17 windows being smashed relates to 'the property' - and is certainly a disclosure which would lead to me asking for explanatory details if I were a prospective buyer...

I don't agree. It was an attack directed at me and my wife. It had nothing to do with the property. You would only know about the attack if I disclosed it, and my reading of the form is that I would not be required to do so.

NewShadow

aroominyork wrote: »

I don't agree. It was an attack directed at me and my wife. It had nothing to do with the property. You would only know about the attack if I disclosed it, and my reading of the form is that I would not be required to do so.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but he's currently in court for property damage - not assault or threatening behaviour to your person - additionally, he's presumably defending... aka disputing the charge?

My understanding in brief: He complained about the gutters - which are part of the property - which directly escalated to alleged criminal damage of said property.

How are you justifying that NOT being covered under "disputes about the property... or anything that might lead to a dispute about the property"?

aroominyork

NewShadow wrote: »

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but he's currently in court for property damage - not assault or threatening behaviour to your person - additionally, he's presumably defending... aka disputing the charge?

He is charged with racially aggravated criminal damage. He admits the criminal damage but denies the racial aggravation. On a day where there was no rainfall, he screamed a torrent of racial abuse saying he would make our lives hell, and then came round and smashed up the property. Was it the gutters that drove his behaviour or his hatred of us on racial grounds? The answer to that is clear to me. I cannot guarantee he would like the people we sell the property to but the current limit of my ethical position is not to sell the house to people of our ethnic background or probably anyone who is not white Anglo.

NewShadow wrote: »

My understanding in brief: He complained about the gutters - which are part of the property - which directly escalated to alleged criminal damage of said property.

No, see above. We had the gutters fixed and it was dry when he attacked the house.

NewShadow wrote: »

How are you justifying that NOT being covered under "disputes about the property... or anything that might lead to a dispute about the property"?

By explaining that he complained about the gutters, we had them attended to, and from there it's down to the housebuyer's survey.

Finally, what would you do in my situation? We cannot live next to this man when he comes out of jail and need to sell the house, so my starting point is to look at our legal obligation on the TA6. What would you do, honestly?

NewShadow

aroominyork wrote: »

racially aggravated criminal damage

Which is a crime against property - not a crime against people.

We had the gutters fixed and it was dry when he attacked the house.

To your satisfaction, but apparently not his - given the complaint to the council - the dispute was ongoing and escalated.

The weather at the time of the incident is irrelevant - if you'll excuse the pun - the precipitating incident is the detail you are required to declare.

You haven't indicated any aggravated behaviour prior to the gutter dispute - which indicates the breakdown of your relationship was caused by the dispute and hence the racial epithets were symptomatic of an escalation of the existing dispute.

Please note that - should a future buyer bring a case for misrepresentation or omission - judgment will be based on if a 'reasonable person' would have thought the matter subject to declaration - semantics won't cut much ice based on the facts as you have presented them.

By explaining that he complained about the gutters, we had them attended to, and from there it's down to the housebuyer's survey.

And that the repair is a matter of ongoing dispute with the neighbour - hence the complaint to the council and the criminal charges.

Please point out where I'm mistaken:
- The neighbour is not satisfied with the repair;
- The neighbour could return; and
- The neighbour could continue to be unsatisfied and cause further property damage.

You are required to disclose matters which "could lead to a dispute" - I think it's clear that this qualifies.

Finally, what would you do in my situation? We cannot live next to this man when he comes out of jail and need to sell the house, so my starting point is to look at our legal obligation on the TA6. What would you do, honestly?

Sell the house, pricing towards the higher end and negotiating to a lower amount as needed, and declare the dispute - but then again - I'm involved in making law so as a point of principle tend to obey it...

By preventing any future buyer from making an informed choice, you’re effectively intending to commit fraud - and you've as much as admitted you know it given your concern is your ability to sell your property, not understanding your actual legal obligations.

Let me ask you to answer honestly - if you weren't looking to sell the house, would you still take the same position?