Seller didnt declare subsidence

housegirl83

Hi everyone!

I'm after a little advice around what must legally be disclosed by the seller of a property prior to making an offer on a house.

Background
We found a house we liked, put in an offer which was accepted and then began the process of purchasing the house. For this so far we've spent a few thousand pounds on surveys, legal fees and mortgage fees. A few things were noted to us by the estate agent prior to making our offer as part of the CPR 2008 stuff (building at back of house and likely impact on the property).

The Issue
During the conveyancing process it turns out that there was a historical claim for subsidence on the property. After speaking to experts, we've been advised that whilst on face value the issue appears to have been resolved 7 years ago, this definitely impacts on the future saleability of the property and therefore overall value, and so they all recommended we didn't go ahead with the purchase without renegotiating a lower price with the seller (they also recommended how much lower we should go). So we did this and unfortunately the seller won't budge at all. He cannot seem to understand that this part of the property history unfortunately has an impact on a buyer's decision around purchasing the property at all and/or what price they would be willing to pay (I get it's not a nice reality to come to terms with but unfortunately it's what we're dealing with).

Sadly because the seller won't move on price we have had to pull out of the purchase. The estate agent has confirmed to us that the seller did not disclose the historical subsidence to them as part of the CPR 2008 questionnaire that all estate agents require sellers to complete. If we had known about the historical subsidence prior to making our initial offer on the property we would have made very different choices (either walked away from it entirely or made a considerably lower offer).

My questions
• Do sellers have to legally disclose historical subsidence on the CPR 2008 form with estate agents? I know it is a question on that form, and in this case the seller outright lied and said there had been no known subsidence on the property, but not sure how legally binding this is.
• I presume that because historical subsidence can influence a buyer's decision on a property purchase it is a legal requirement to disclose to prospective buyers either when marketing the property or when they view it. Is that correct?
• We would like to recoup our costs so far for legal fees, surveys and mortgage fees as we would not have progressed this far down the line and spent all that money, had we known about the historical subsidence sooner. Would we have a legal case to do this?

Many thanks in anticipation of your responses!

Davesnave

The vendor's non-disclosure to the EA in forming a contract is not something you can attach a case to, since you have no part in that contract.

The vendor has no duty to volunteer information about the property, or reveal defects, but any questions which are asked by buyers or their agents should be answered truthfully to the best of their ability.

It appears that you didn't ask about a prior history of subsidence prior to starting the legal process of purchase through your solicitor, so the vendor has done nothing wrong in a legal sense. The situation would be the same if enquiries revealed some problem with the legal title or, say, an inconvenient right of way.


Those entering into the purchase of a property cannot assume anything and their rights in law would seem somewhat less than those pertaining to the purchase of a chocolate bar. This shocks many, but it's how things are. Sorry.


PS. An underpinned house that has all the necessary paperwork may well be a strong house and a good purchase. It's usually prejudice which reduces the value. Over time, say about 20 years, the stigma fades and insurance quotes are no longer loaded.

pinkshoes

Before instructing solicitors and making an offer, YOU need to ask the EA questions.

Did you ask about subsidence before offering? If you did and they said no, then you have a case.

If it has been underpinned for 7 years then chances are you will not have future problems, unlike other similar houses where the subsidence hasn't been spotted.

Why not make some sensible enquiries about their insurance, as the only issue I can see is whether insurance companies will want huge premiums.

[Deleted User]

Nothing to add apart from that everyone needs to appreciate that this is the whole point of the conveyancing process. To find out things that weren't apparent on offer and to do so in a legally binding way

Perhaps its a bit sneaky that they didnt tell you upfront but then again why would they? If its not legally required it would just stop people viewing a property and falling in love with it.
I bought a property recently that turned out to have been underpinned. Its in an area that is quite common for subsidence and my first thought was 'well at least i dont have that problem to look forward to'.
I may not have even viewed it if it was in the listing but because I had been to it and made my plans for living there, I researched if it was an actual problem and came to the conclusion that it wasnt an issue for me.

housegirl83

Hi there everone


Thanks for all your responses.



Initially, I thought the same as you, but then realised that in 2008 a new law came into place - the 'Consumer Protection Regulations 2008' (CPR 2008). Along with this I believe it is now law for sellers to tell buyers about structural defects (past and present) and any other information that could affect their decision to make an offer.



I believe along with this law it is no longer the principle of "caveat emptor" (buyer beware), but is now on the seller and agent to ensure they disclose any information likely to have an impact on the value or buyers decision of the property.



I believe all estate agents must request a seller complete the CPR2008 form prior to marketing the property and on this form historical subsidence is a specific question (ie: has there ever been historical subsidence on the property).



From what I can gather, subsidence (historical and current) must be declared either when marketing the property or during a property viewing to ensure a buyer is aware of the issue prior to making an offer.



The seller in question answered "no" to there ever being historical subsidence on the property and therefore this could not be disclosed to us prior to us making an offer.



Surely there must be some legal stance here somewhere? The seller deliberately lied on the CPR 2008 form to 'hide' the historical claim.



PS: it's probably worth noting we will look to get proper legal advice on this, I was just hoping someone might be able to clarify for me on here!


PPS: after speaking with industry professionals on the matter (builders and surveyors) they've advised that structural work undertaken on a property, specifically for subsidence, doesn't make the property "stronger" at all.

AdrianC

pinkshoes wrote: »

Before instructing solicitors and making an offer, YOU need to ask the EA questions.

Did you ask about subsidence before offering? If you did and they said no, then you have a case.

...but...

housegirl83 wrote: »

The seller in question answered "no" to there ever being historical subsidence on the property and therefore this could not be disclosed to us prior to us making an offer.

Surely there must be some legal stance here somewhere? The seller deliberately lied on the CPR 2008 form to 'hide' the historical claim.

So if you'd asked, the EA would have answered "not to the best of our knowledge" - which would have been accurate. You have no case against the EA. They were honest and open with you, and did not mislead you.

You have no case against the vendor, either, because you have no contract with them - you pulled out of the transaction when your due diligence uncovered a detail you did not like, prior to exchange of contracts.

Thank your solicitor for doing his job properly, and move on to the next property.

davidmcn

OP, where are you finding references to a "CPR2008 form"? According to Google you're the only person who has used that expression.

[Deleted User]

Here is a blog from a solicitor from last year that states that it is up to the buyer to find out the details. The seller does not have to disclose any defects about the property unless specifically asked



https://www.fisherslaw.co.uk/site/blog/conveyancing-blog/buying-a-new-home-be-aware-of-caveat-emptor.html



The form that asks for the details of the property is the TA6, sellers information form. Anything put on that is binding and your solicitor raises questions off the back of it

housegirl83

davidmcn wrote: »

OP, where are you finding references to a "CPR2008 form"? According to Google you're the only person who has used that expression.

Hi there


I've just abbreviated - it's the 'Consumer Protection Regulations 2008' form/questionnaire. I've checked from when I was selling my own house earlier this year, and I promise you it's definitely an official thing!!

[Deleted User]

Out of curiousity I checked with a local estate agent (big corporate so contracts will be watertight to protect them). Here is all the questions on the checklist the sellers signs:



Tenure

Ownership details (sole/joint/shared equity)

Connection of services

Any access rights over property

Any major alterations to the property

What type of windows

What type of doors

Is there a garage

Is the drive shared

Is there parking

What type of heating system is there

Are you aware of any health and safety risks in the property

Does the property have any current or potential issues





A few of these you could argue could be answered with the subsidence and underpinning but the question isn’t there so its up to the solicitors to find out

Different agents will have different wording but it's going to come down to the fact you didn't ask so thr seller didn't have to disclose. If it came up during the legal process then the legal process worked and you made a new decision based on new facts.

I know its horrible to be out of pocket. Surely your mortgage will be valid for the next property?
The survey fees is money well spent as you've avoided buying a property you wouldn't want
The solicitors fee is well spent as they found out the information for you

Davesnave

housegirl83 wrote: »

PS: it's probably worth noting we will look to get proper legal advice on this, I was just hoping someone might be able to clarify for me on here!


PPS: after speaking with industry professionals on the matter (builders and surveyors) they've advised that structural work undertaken on a property, specifically for subsidence, doesn't make the property "stronger" at all.

We have clarified on here that you have no claim on the matter of a false statement in the contract between seller and agent, as you are not a party to it. Hopefully, someone else with a better understanding than me may affirm and explain this more clearly.

If the agent was not made aware of the historic subsidence, they could not have disclosed it.

As stated earlier, the vendor is not required to volunteer information about the property to a buyer; only to respond to questions honestly and to the best of their ability. There's a good reason for this, which is that many vendors believe all sorts of nonsense about their houses. This is why one employs surveyors and solicitors to check statements, even if given in good faith.

Your advice about the strength of underpinned houses is interesting. If a house is underpinned and stops subsiding, surely it is 'stronger' than it was before in resisting movement? Perhaps 'stronger' isn't the best word, but I'm not going into semantics. In any event, this is why insurers wait to see if the movement has stopped before lowering premiums.

Do let us know where your further enquiries lead. Your question is quite a regular one here and we don't wish to mislead anyone.