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

steampowered

If you think this is an issue, drop the price or walk away.

Jeepers_Creepers

Thanks again everyone.

I understand the way it works, and if something of importance is wrongly disclosed in the LSPIF that did not come to light until after competition, then - as davidmcn says - you would still need to demonstrate a loss before you could take successful action against them. That is not the situation here as we have done enough research to discover the issues involved and have brought them to everyone's attention.

What I was interested in hearing was whether the vendor's solicitor had a moral or even legal obligation to correct the form, or oblige their client to do so. Seemingly not, and the solicitor's attitude here is very much 'so what?'.

The irony - given that this form is provided by the solicitor to the client - is that it states:

It is very important that your answers are accurate. If you give incorrect or incomplete information to the buyer (on this form or otherwise in writing or in conversation, whether through your estate agent or solicitor or directly to the buyer), the buyer may make a claim for compensation against you or refuse to complete the purchase.

If you later become aware of any information which would alter any replies you have given, you must inform your solicitor immediately. This is as important as giving the right answers in the first place Do not change any arrangements concerning the property with anyone (such as tenant or neighbour) without first consulting your solicitor.

The real issue behind all this is that the property has an AOC and the seller has placed obstacle after obstacle in our path towards purchase, for pretty obvious reasons. And the EA and their solicitor - both of whom I am certain are fully aware of his true intentions - are not only acting on his behalf as they would for any sale, but have been active in assisting him by, for example, trying to apportion blame on us for delays, when their client is the one not producing essential information (by 'essential', I mean information that you simply would not buy a property without knowing). I won't go as far as to suggest they are effectively complicit in his unethical plans, but - hell - they almost certainly are. 

The EA has actually acknowledged at one point that one gigantic and unsubtle 'hurdle' placed by the vendor (which they immediately back-tracked on when we threatened to inform Planning) did suggest that they were trying to scupper the sale. That didn't stop him still ultimately joining back in the chorus of blame, however. The solicitor is also completely aware of what's going on as they are the ones who had to rewrite the Deeds following our complaint and threat. Again, however, no sense of ethical behaviour.

It's incredibly murky. 

eddddy

Jeepers_Creepers said:

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.

Realistically - what were you hoping the seller would say?

For example, as the solicitor says, what can the seller do about the lack of permitted development rights? What were you hoping the seller might do?

The house is what it is - i.e. a house without permitted development rights, with a converted garage without planning consent (plus whatever other issues exist).

You have to decide whether that's the type of house you want to buy, and if you do want to buy it, how much you're willing to pay (i.e. you might want to reduce your offer).

It's a bit frustrating that the EA didn't tell you more information before you made an offer and incurred legal fees, mortgage fees, survey fees etc. If you end up walking away, there may be scope for you to make a complaint about the EA, and perhaps be awarded some of your fees back.

princeofpounds

Ah, thanks for the extra explanation. So you're buying from a vendor who doesn't really want to sell, because they can claim it wouldn't sell and get the agricultural occupancy condition removed. I can see how that would promote all kinds of odd behaviour.

Yeah, their solicitor has been a bit shady, but he is looking after his client's interests I suppose, even if they aren't transparent. I suspect he isn't legally bound to change the SPIF because it is ultimately something filled out by the vendor. He might privately advise not to be dishonest on it, but I'm not sure his duty goes any further. Maybe that changes if he finds incontrovertible evidence that these disclosures are not true, but your enquiries alone aren't evidence. 

You'll also see that his language has been quite careful in some ways. 'My understanding is that planning permission was not required' [because that was the representation made by my client]. 'There is nothing my client can do about the lack of permitted development rights' [which is a fact but doesn't actually answer your objections in any way].

Jeepers_Creepers

Eddddy, I would actually have appreciated - expected - something approaching an apology or at least an assurance that the form would be corrected and updated. Why? Because that's what I would definitely instruct my solicitor to do if I were selling a house I actually wished to sell. I was checking on here whether that was an obligation in any way; seemingly it is not.

The evidence IS incontrovertible - it can all be found online and/or via a call with the Planning Dept (we've done both) - and the solicitor has effectively accepted the info, tho' then dismissing it in the manner explained above. Not the actions of a solicitor who is actively trying to assist a client to sell their property; it's more like one who knows what's going on but doesn't care - he will do his client's bidding, however underhand he knows it to be.

Interestingly, the EA called today to say that the seller's arbitrarily-applied 'deadline' for us to exchange by has expired and the seller is therefore withdrawing from the sale with us (whilst keeping the property on the market), whilst trying to blame us. For our part, we are keeping our offer on the table - whilst also informing both the Planning Dept and our local MP of what is clearly going on; we have lots of evidence to show attempts to scupper the sale.  

AOCs - clearly well intentioned, but open to huge abuse.

kiddy_guy

Make sure you inform the EA. 
Their obligations to tell the truth about why it fell through may warn others about the issue here. 

AdrianC

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Eddddy, I would actually have appreciated - expected - something approaching an apology or at least an assurance that the form would be corrected and updated. Why? Because that's what I would definitely instruct my solicitor to do if I were selling a house I actually wished to sell.

What practical difference does it make?

The PIF provides information to the buyer. Sure, it's wrong - but you know it's wrong. So you aren't misinformed.

So...?

Oh, and there's no such thing as a "moral obligation". There may or may not be a legal obligation, but that's the only type that's relevant.

Davesnave

Jeepers_Creepers said:

AOCs - clearly well intentioned, but open to huge abuse.

Look at it the other way round. Because the system is broken and AOCs aren't now policed adequately in many places, people with the cash may buy one of these properties, live in it without complying with the conditions of the tie for 10 years and then apply for a Certificate of Lawful Development. Once that's granted, anyone can buy the property, so it's value immediately rises by at least 25%.

That's exactly what we set out to do, and by failing to comply with the tie, the previous owner gave us several years head start.

Those who are in farming full-time cannot do that, so they must look at the existing situation and feel that it's very unfair to them. People who are not farmers are being rewarded for breaking planning law.

In my defence, I'd add that although we do not comply with our tie by earning a living from the land, my wife and I do farm it in a traditional manner in conjunction with a local farmer. Both house and land are in a much better state than they were 11 years ago, because we've had the confidence to invest time and money in them.

Jeepers_Creepers

AdrianC said:

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Eddddy, I would actually have appreciated - expected - something approaching an apology or at least an assurance that the form would be corrected and updated. Why? Because that's what I would definitely instruct my solicitor to do if I were selling a house I actually wished to sell.

What practical difference does it make?

The PIF provides information to the buyer. Sure, it's wrong - but you know it's wrong. So you aren't misinformed.

So...?

Oh, and there's no such thing as a "moral obligation". There may or may not be a legal obligation, but that's the only type that's relevant.

Practical difference? As you say, 'none'. I was asking initially to see if there was a legal obligation, or if - at the very least - it would be best/usual/expected practice? We asked our solicitor to ask theirs to confirm whether our findings were correct; they did not, but simply replied with the two dismissive comments I mentioned above. Is this something that you would have expected from a vendor keen to sell? Not even a 'we will update the LSPIF'? 

Why is this important? Because it helps to build the picture of where the participants were sitting during this whole process - we were almost certainly nobbled, with their help, from the outset. Obviously we cannot prove a thing, but it adds to the uneasy feeling of both the EA and solicitor being fully aware of what was going on, and not even following 'normal' conveyancing practice; they went beyond the call, and were promoting the vendor's underhand ways. For example, we had casually mentioned to the EA what our possible plans were for the property in order to comply with the AOC. When the TP1 came through with two highly unusual (I suspect quite unique) and very restrictive covenants, tailor-made to scupper these specific plans, it became pretty obvious that the vendor was trying to impede the sale. We complained and insisted they remove them - threatening to inform Planning - and they did, immediately. We were not given other essential information relating to the property - info you would simply not proceed without - and this still remains outstanding, months later. Both the solicitor and the EA, however, insist we were given everything, and try to pass the blame on to us. Finally, the EA passed on the seller's arbitrary deadline for us to exchange (with many matters outstanding) and used this as his excuse to pull out.

Very smelly.

Jeepers_Creepers

Davesnave said:

Jeepers_Creepers said:

AOCs - clearly well intentioned, but open to huge abuse.

Look at it the other way round. Because the system is broken and AOCs aren't now policed adequately in many places, people with the cash may buy one of these properties, live in it without complying with the conditions of the tie for 10 years and then apply for a Certificate of Lawful Development. Once that's granted, anyone can buy the property, so it's value immediately rises by at least 25%.

That's exactly what we set out to do, and by failing to comply with the tie, the previous owner gave us several years head start.

Those who are in farming full-time cannot do that, so they must look at the existing situation and feel that it's very unfair to them. People who are not farmers are being rewarded for breaking planning law.

In my defence, I'd add that although we do not comply with our tie by earning a living from the land, my wife and I do farm it in a traditional manner in conjunction with a local farmer. Both house and land are in a much better state than they were 11 years ago, because we've had the confidence to invest time and money in them.

I agree, Dave, and we are fully aware of both sides of the argument. 

I can certainly state that we would not pursue a property with an AOC unless (a) there was clearly no longer a demand for such a place at this time. We confirmed this with a local councillor we spoke to first, and also took into account the market value of the property; even with the 'AOC discount', it remains an expensive 3-bed house in the area, and cannot be considered 'affordable housing' (you can buy a 5-bed property for less), but it obviously has other benefits such as its location and plot size. And (b) we could not ourselves make a decent attempt to conform with the AOC, which was our intention.

The vendor, on the other hand, has a decades-long history of manipulating Planning laws with a number of breaches, and has previously tried to overdevelop the land - something that the Sec of State finally had to step in and side with the council to prevent. We have kept the Planning Dept fully formed of our intentions throughout.