Seller didnt declare subsidence

eddddy

Deleted_User wrote: »

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.

It's not a case of lying, it's a case of omitting material information. (But there's still the issue of proving that somebody knew the information.)

This EA was ordered to pay £25k compensation, for failing to mention a proposal to stop maintaining sea defences.

Even though there's no suggestion that the buyer ever asked the EA about the sea defences.

https://www.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press-releases/case-studies/item/annual-report-omission-of-the-truth-shatters-buyers-dream


On that basis, the NAEA and Property Ombudsman are suggesting that a seller must disclose that kind of info, even if they're not specifically asked.

(And it's unlikely that a question about proposals to stop maintaining sea defences would appear on a standard check list.)

[Deleted User]

Again though, how does anyone prove the vendor intentionally withheld information that would have been good to know? Estate agents can't disclose what they never knew, and vendors might not mention if it doesn't cross their minds as something worth mentioning

My client had her sale fall through as her stove was installed diy and should have been done by hetas engineer. Buyers were really annoyed they weren't told upfront before they spent all their money but she wasn't to know that was a problem so didn't mention until asked.

housegirl83

cattie wrote: »

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.

Thank you and I'm so sorry you had to take the hit on your house. That's exactly the reason why we told the vendors we couldn't continue at the price we had originally offered (we did offer a lower figure as advised by industry professionals) - couldn't really afford to take that risk!



I hope you're happy now in your lovely flat.

housegirl83

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.

That's my thoughts - all we would want back is the money we outlaid for the surveys etc to make sure we weren't out of pocket. We are getting advice (from estate agent and legal) so will let you know how it pans out. No one has yet said it's not possible to request reimbursment of costs.

housegirl83

pinkshoes wrote: »

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.

I don't believe it is though - sellers and agents by law must disclose any information about the property which would affect a buyers decision to purchase, or their decision on offer price.



What is the point in having these forms for the seller to complete as a legal requirement, and a law in place to ensure the seller/agent impart such knowledge to the buyer, if the buyers must only ask the same questions again - makes the form a bit redundant don't you think?



I mean, I could just list out the full set of questions which are on these forms to every estate agent for every property I'm interested in (believe me I'm probably going to do that) but that just means the law that is currently in place to protect buyers from just this is absolutely pointless.

housegirl83

Deleted_User wrote: »

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

Already checked - lying by omission is considered "misrepresentation" and is treated the same as outright lying!

housegirl83

eddddy wrote: »

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...



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




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.

Thank you SO much - this is really helpful!!

housegirl83

eddddy wrote: »

It's not a case of lying, it's a case of omitting material information. (But there's still the issue of proving that somebody knew the information.)

This EA was ordered to pay £25k compensation, for failing to mention a proposal to stop maintaining sea defences.

Even though there's no suggestion that the buyer ever asked the EA about the sea defences.

https://www.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press-releases/case-studies/item/annual-report-omission-of-the-truth-shatters-buyers-dream


On that basis, the NAEA and Property Ombudsman are suggesting that a seller must disclose that kind of info, even if they're not specifically asked.

(And it's unlikely that a question about proposals to stop maintaining sea defences would appear on a standard check list.)

Really really useful - thank you!!

eddddy

housegirl83 wrote: »

That's my thoughts - all we would want back is the money we outlaid for the surveys etc to make sure we weren't out of pocket. We are getting advice (from estate agent and legal) so will let you know how it pans out. No one has yet said it's not possible to request reimbursment of costs.

You have no basis for a legal claim against the seller, because you have no contract with the seller.

You can certainly "request reimbursement of costs" - maybe the seller will feel bad, and pay you as a gesture of goodwill.

But if they don't, you'd be pretty much stuck. You're very unlikely to win your claim in court.

housegirl83

eddddy wrote: »

You have no basis for a legal claim against the seller, because you have no contract with the seller.

You can certainly "request reimbursement of costs" - maybe the seller will feel bad, and pay you as a gesture of goodwill.

But if they don't, you'd be pretty much stuck. You're very unlikely to win your claim in court.

I've been doing quite a bit of research over the weekend and it seems you don't have to have a contract in place with the seller to claim for misrepresentation of the property.



I am going to be getting legal advice anyway on this so hopefully they'll be able to properly confirm what is and isn't possible. It might be that a simple letter from a solicitor requesting the costs are reimbursed will be enough and no further action would be needed (in an ideal world that would be the best outcome as I'd really rather not have to take someone to court!).



I can accept if there is absolutely nothing I can do, however we've outlaid a lot of money on this property, with the full intention to purchase it, and it's all been wasted because they (the seller) didn't initially disclose something which I believe they are legally required to disclose.



The whole point here is that if we had known this information prior to making our initial offer on the property we would have either walked away or put in a considerably lower offer. We would not have paid all this money to then have to start renegotiating on price (which has failed because the vendor won't renegotiate)!