Seller didnt declare subsidence

AdrianC

housegirl83 wrote: »

Hey there... so you've never had to complete any form or questionnaire with any estate agent when you're selling a house? Seems strange. Maybe those EAs are willing to accept the risk of not doing due diligence and having the information to hand. I thought these forms were part of the seller-EA contract. That's certainly what I've been advised previously.

I think you're confusing the contract between the EA and seller, allowing and governing the sales process, and the property information required as part of the sales process.

[Deleted User]

housegirl83 wrote: »

That's wierd...on the same questionnaires I've been privvy to there is a whole section dedicated to subsidence and structural defects which includes the below two questions:

• Are you aware of any current structural defects or issues with subsidence?
• Are you aware of any historical structural defects or issues with subsidence?

Have you seen the one the seller completed out of interest? Or are you saying that other versions of the documents have these questions?

cattie

I feel for you OP as my previous house had needed remedial structural work prior to me buying it. Sellers had disclosed it & it was something I asked my surveyor to pay attention to. He ok'd it & I went ahead with purchase.

However when it came to selling to downsize a few years later in a pretty stagnant market, I ended up accepting an offer £25k lower than price I was hoping for just so I didn't lose out on the flat I wanted to buy.

I'd been upfront with viewers regarding the history of the house as to me there was nothing to gain by not disclosing as the conveyancing process will reveal that remedial work had been needed. Houses having had previous structural remedial work can struggle to sell unless it was donkey's years ago since work was done, or you're willing to take a hit on the price.

Although I can't advice on whether you've a chance of legally pursuing a claim against sellers not disclosing, my advice would be to count yourself lucky that you're not taking on this house.

comedyseeker123

Not sure why you can’t sue the owner, they lied and the form is put in place to stop such lies. You don’t have a contract with the estate agent and you have been out of pocket.

pinkshoes

housegirl83 wrote: »

Hey there... so you've never had to complete any form or questionnaire with any estate agent when you're selling a house? Seems strange. Maybe those EAs are willing to accept the risk of not doing due diligence and having the information to hand. I thought these forms were part of the seller-EA contract. That's certainly what I've been advised previously.

Again, it is up to YOU to ask questions to the EA before offering.

A successful underpinning will not be an issue to many people, especially if it as years ago and comes with a guarantee for the work.

You: has this house had any structural issues
EA: to the best of my knowledge no
You: could you please ask the vendor this and give me their response in writing?
EA: of course...

At this point you would have had your answer and could make a decision on whether you wanted to proceed.

[Deleted User]

comedyseeker123 wrote: »

Not sure why you can’t sue the owner, they lied and the form is put in place to stop such lies. You don’t have a contract with the estate agent and you have been out of pocket.

How do we know they lied? We dont have a copy of the paperwork that was completed. I posted the checklist a big agent around me uses and it doesn't ask the question. Lying by omission may be a thing but good luck trying to get a court to agree

eddddy

housegirl83 wrote: »

• 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 think you're talking about "The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008".

My understanding is that only applies to "business to consumer" interactions.

So an EA or a developer has a duty to disclose "material facts" like subsidence (because they're businesses), but a private seller doesn't.



BUT... the NAEA Propertymark (the National Associaltion of Estate Agents) and the Property Ombudsman both suggest that the law applies to the seller as well...

The NAEA say...

Under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 both the seller and agent must disclose anything, within their knowledge, that would affect the transactional decision of the average consumer.

Link: https://www.naea.co.uk/media/1011000/property-information-questionnaire-freehold.pdf

And in a decision about a complaint, The Property Ombudsman says that a seller is committing an offence, if they omit to mention subsidence:

It should be noted that Agent B could be committing an offence for omitting information relating to the subsidence unless they were unaware of it due to the act or default of the seller who has hidden the fact, in which case the seller commits the offence.

Link: https://www.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press-releases/case-studies/item/the-truth-and-the-cprs

But these offences would be punished by a fine (or imprisonment), so even if the NAEA and Property Ombudsman are correct, I'm not sure on what basis you could claim damages from the seller.

[Deleted User]

eddddy wrote: »

BUT... the NAEA Propertymark (the National Associaltion of Estate Agents) and the Property Ombudsman both suggest that the law applies to the seller as well...

Who is to hold the seller to account though? Presumably the NAEA and Property Ombusdman hold no power over a private seller as these are trade bodies?

Misrepresentation penalties are I think brought by Trading Standards?, but again can they go after an individual?

AdrianC

Deleted_User wrote: »

Who is to hold the seller to account though?

In this instance, there's nothing to hold the seller to account for - since the sale never happened, due to the proper pre-purchase diligence having been carried out.

If the sale had completed, then it would depend on whether the seller had been asked and lied, in which case there would be legal recourse, or whether the buyer had never asked, in which case there would not.

Caveat emptor - but the seller must be honest in their answers.

[Deleted User]

https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/property/when-selling-my-house-am-i-legally-obliged-to-disclose-any-information-that-may-affect-a-potential-buyer-s-decision-1-4170528


This would suggest the seller has to volunteer the information. But how would they know this was the case without an agent guiding them.
I wouod expect you would have to prove some sort of intent to lie to get anywhere. If an agent gives you a checklist and you complete it honestly you wuoldnt expect to have to add extra info not requested. Surely the agent knows what they are doing is what I would think.