Inaccuracies in the Law Society Property Info Form - should seller address this? (prior to exchange)

Jeepers_Creepers

Helllooooo again :-)

Situation is that a vendor (quite knowingly, we believe) filled out parts of this form inaccurately. The issues refer to changes he made to the property for which he claimed Planning and Building Regs were 'not required' as it was 'permitted development'. He also replied 'no' to any known 'breaches' and to whether any changes had been made to the accommodation such as conversion of the garage (which has taken place). I did myself realise, on viewing, that there was a minor Build Regs non-conformity in that the conservatory was completely open to a room in the main building (which had central heating) but I wasn't unduly concerned as this would be easy to address should we buy the property and I didn't want to appear picky.

However, we now know - via the Planning history and Building Control - that the Departments are aware of the more significant breach (the change of use of the garage to habitable accommodation) but - a bit more gob-smackingly - that the house had Permitted Development Rights removed during the planning stage. Basically, the guy has fibbed big time.

When we asked our solicitor to confirm the veracity of these issues with the seller's solicitor, his solicitor replied with just a couple of comments; "My understanding is that planning permission was not required" which is clearly incorrect, and "There is nothing my client can do about the lack of permitted development rights" which I find to be a wee bitty dismissive.

Does anyone know if the vendor and/or his solicitor is duty (or legally) bound to correct the inaccuracies in the LSPIF? 

Many thanks.

davidmcn

It would be a good idea (from their point of view) for them to do so, but it's kind of academic if you already know prior to exchange about any discrepancies.

pinkteapot

Your solicitor should be advising you on what the potential future implications of this are (in the event the PIF is corrected, and in the event it isn't). 

It sounds like you're proceeding with the purchase anyway, but just make sure you know all the potential pitfalls first.

AdrianC

What's your actual concern here?

Some paperwork errors?
Or the risk of the LA coming after you for lack of PP or BR?

When was the garage converted?

Jeepers_Creepers

Many thanks, the three of you :-)

Whether we actually proceed with the purchase is still up in the air (and is largely dependent on us receiving further essential information which we've been chasing for months), but - yes, of course - we are now fully aware of the issues and would proceed on that basis (it's not like they've come to light after exchange or completion which is when things can be really messy).

The sale is 'peculiar' at best, and we think we understand what is 'going on'. We are concerned at the attitude of the Estate Agent and now their solicitor (tho' I accept there is little we can do about it) in that they almost certainly also know what is going on but are seemingly happy to not only turn a blind eye, but to even promote the seller's true agenda. Yes, yes, yes I know that they work for the seller!, but there's an uncomfortable line of professionalism here which I feel has been crossed a few times by both.

Ladie, are there no ethics any more?

Jeepers_Creepers

AdrianC said:

What's your actual concern here?

Some paperwork errors?
Or the risk of the LA coming after you for lack of PP or BR?

When was the garage converted?

Hi Adrian.

No, we are satisfied (from Build Control) that the conversion occurred long enough ago that action could not now be taken (unless, of course, someone were to make a complaint and the changes were found to be unsafe, for example). I'm really just looking at the vendor's solicitor's attitude in this (and a number of issues) and checking to see where their responsibilities and ethics are sitting.

Retired_Mortgage_Adviser

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Ladie, are there no ethics any more?

Unfortunately, not in the business of buying/selling houses in the UK. It's a zero-sum game and best played with no expectation of fair-play or ethics from the other side.

And I say this as an ex-mortgage broker and a portfolio landlord myself!

Andysandy

The TA6 form is worthless. Vendors will often lie outright by just marking "not aware" even when they are. But there's nothing much you can do about it unless the vendor is desperate to sell to you.

AdrianC

Jeepers_Creepers said:

AdrianC said:

What's your actual concern here?

Some paperwork errors?
Or the risk of the LA coming after you for lack of PP or BR?

When was the garage converted?

Hi Adrian.

No, we are satisfied (from Build Control) that the conversion occurred long enough ago that action could not now be taken (unless, of course, someone were to make a complaint and the changes were found to be unsafe, for example). I'm really just looking at the vendor's solicitor's attitude in this (and a number of issues) and checking to see where their responsibilities and ethics are sitting.

The solicitor's responsibilities are clear - they are to their client. That's not you. If you don't like that solicitor, and the way they work, then your course of action is clear... Don't hire them to act on your behalf in any future matter.

Your solicitor's job is to ensure that what you exchange contracts on is what you think you're exchanging contracts on. It's clear there's no difference between your expectations and what's going to be transferred, in respect of this detail, so no issue.

The vendor's solicitor does not complete the PIF. The vendor does. The solicitor merely forwards it.

princeofpounds

This one is a bit weird. There is no particular advantage to getting them to amend the form. The idea of the form is that it forces people to disclose the truth, on pain of potential liability for any issues not disclosed that later become a problem. If they correct the form, they are no longer liable. So the most advantageous position to be in, in theory, is for them to lie, but for you to totally aware of each and every problem and the potential consequences. That way you know what you are getting, but may have some comeback if the worst happens.

The problem here is that not only do you have some awareness of the issues (maybe not all, we can't tell), but that you have almost 'reverse-disclosed' that. So if you do go after them, they could claim something like 'yes we lied on the form but they knew about this anyway so it doesn't matter'. I have no idea how that would work out in a court scenario. Also, your solicitor and therefore your mortgage lender are aware of these issues too. The mortgage lender may or may not care, based on your solicitor's advice.

Anyway, you're making a mistake by focusing on the form, because what matters is what problems you are buying for yourself. Not only in terms of inhabiting the property, but in terms of onward sale. Are both planning and building regs well past the enforcement period? that seems pretty key.

davidmcn

princeofpounds said:

I have no idea how that would work out in a court scenario.

The OP would need to show that they suffered a loss having entered into the contract in reliance of the answers in the form - which obviously isn't the case in relation to the matters discussed. Like I said, this is pretty irrelevant, and as above there's no point debating the "ethics" of the other party's solicitor, whose job is to flog the property with the least hassle for their client. The OP appears to be getting decent advice from their own side.