Defending a misrepresentation claim

TheJP

Mr2018 said:

It was accurate as far as I was concerned.  You can't write war and peace in the box, its only a small box to fill in. I certainly highlighted a flooding incident and would have answered any enquiries on it honestly.

All you have to say that the home flooded in the past, its up to the buyer to delve deeper. If you have done this then they have no case, likewise with the neighbour and builder dispute. Your buyers are experiencing buyer regret on a deep level, were they FTBs or seasoned buyers?

RS2OOO

Mr2018 said:

The exact wording I put on the PIF was [ticketed yes to question has the property flooded]

"Aug 20 - Road drain blocked by leaves, resulted in surface water / rainfall building up from heavy storm that overwhelmed blocked drain and entered integral garage. Drains have been unblocked since."

I have to say, to me as a layman this wording looks quite calculated in the way it is technically correct, but implies only the garage was affected and that is how I would have read it.

I think this is exactly where a good Conveyancer earns their worth - by raising enquiries to establish exactly what the impact of the flood was.

And by the sounds of it your buyers Conveyancer did not.

Mr2018

I get the point about giving my address and making sure they don't try anything claiming they cannot get in touch with me.  My worry is now that almost means I am engaging and might spur them on and also makes me the easy target in all this - as a reminder my ex-partner was on the deeds and mortgage as well and so should also be legally responsible for this but she has taken the no response position.

They viewed the house twice with the estate agent, no visible damage - the house was pristine as was mentioned by the estate agents and pretty much everyone that viewed it. I was a single man in new build family size home so everyone was always amazed how tidy well presented it was.

The carpets were not new at time of sale.  They were 4 years old at time of sale, but in great condition.  Minimal usage in most rooms (being only one person living there for the majority of the time and no pets), the figure I believe is to replace the who house, including upstairs.  This was a pretty large 4 bedroom house.  I have the photos saved that were taken for Rightmove showing the carpets.

I would think the same regarding the carpets as not having 'flooded' but using the legal definition I am not as sure.  I think it came from seepage as you said, but cannot be sure if im being honest.  I just know I was not standing in a pool of water like I was in the garage.

[TripleH] thanks for summarising my two likely avenues to go.  I agree, this is the choice I have.  I am leaning towards doing nothing, but as my first point, I am unsure how to give them my address without seeming like I have replied and am engaging.  If they don't have my address, how I will know they have actually give up over just no way of sending me any correspondence.  

There has been no mention of damages for a reducing the house value, but have seen this in the research I have done.  I did sell the house below market value due to needing a quick sale and the difficulty in selling a house with this issue.  So I would hope this would already cover any damages attempting to be claimed for this.

They were certainly no veteran buyers, but did have a house to sell.  I would guess 2nd time buyers upsizing.

I agree and this is the crux of my defence.  Why did their legal team or them not question this if it read slightly ambiguous or calculated.  Or even confirm their understanding of how it read.  It seems very negligible that they accepted 2 short sentences on a pretty significant issues with no questions and no survey?   It wasn't my intention to write it like this, I was trying to be factual not calculated.  I consider myself a decent honest person and in no way intended to mislead them on any part.  I do know the estate agents gave them more information than what the PIF did in their conversations with them.

GDB2222

"I agree and this is the crux of my defence.  Why did their legal team or them not question this if it read slightly ambiguous or calculated.  Or even confirm their understanding of how it read."

You have no obligation to answer any questions on the TA6 at all, although it will make it much harder to sell the house if you don't.

If you do answer the TA6, your answers form part of the contract, and they need to be accurate. Your answer strongly implied that the flood in the garage did not reach the house. That's how I read it, but you don't have to convince me. I don't matter. You need to convince a judge. Assuming the judge takes that view, you have lost your case.

You say above that the crux of your defence is that it was up to the buyers to ask more questions to clarify. That gets you nowhere, I'm afraid. If the judge decides that your answer was deliberately misleading, he is not going to agree that it was up to the buyers to cross-examine you until you admitted the truth. If you run that defence, it will get the judge's back up and weaken your position. 

 

bouicca21

I also find the answer on the TA 6 somewhat misleading, but equally I’m not sure that damage to carpets and skirting boards to the extent alleged by the buyers can be attributed to flood damage, and if it was then damage to skirting board would be obvious even if open windows disguised the smell.  And they clearly did not do due diligence.

But the timeline is confusing.  First incident August 2020, second October 2020, house sold 2020 yet OP claims he lived in the house for 9 months after the first incident.   

If OP´s first post is mistaken and he actually sold in 2021, which makes more sense, then the buyers spotted the alleged damage very quickly, which sort of confirms it was obvious.

6 of one, half a dozen …   I think OP may have partial liability, but I’m no lawyer.

Mr2018

Sale of the house was 2021.  There was no obvious damage, buyers viewed the property twice and we did a walk round for an hour on the day of hand over, no obvious signs of any damage.  The claim coming a month later will have likely come after meeting the neighbours and getting into a conversation about the incident and the neighbours stating they had their carpets and skirting boards changed.

Perhaps using the expression the 'crux of my defence' was not the way best way to put it.  I am not solely relying on them asking questions but this along with 'buyer beware', there is an emphasis on them knowing what they are buying/doing their checks? They were given more details by the estate agents than just the TA6, but still their response was that they were not unduly concerned and proceed with the sale.  If no one had said anything about the flooding, they would never have known. I say this not to say I could have got away with it, but to emphasis there was no visible sign of the incident.

I would hope any judge or anyone would not accept a defence of it is up to the buyers to cross-examine me until I admitted the truth. If this was the case and what I had intended, I would not be wasting anyone's time here.  I have looked at this from the other side many times as no one wants to be in this position and I wouldn't have wanted to put anyone in the position where they are not happy with their purchase.  As far as I was concerned, the house was in immaculate condition at the point of hand over, they used the same terminology when they viewed it. They got a lovely house at a great price.

But you are right, this is not about trying to convince people on here. I appreciate all the comments, which ever side you sit on. If it ends up in front of a judge and the judge deems I did something wrong I will have to accept that take it on the chin. I hope this is not the case, but one way or another there are plenty of important lessons learnt about buying/selling a house.

MaryNB

Mr2018 said:

I thought I had put 'via' the garage and so what I wrote in the PIF box doesn't (or was not intended to) sound like it was exclusive to the garage.  Which would then be backed up with estate agents conversations etc.  I am actually unsure if it went inside the living parts of the house, damp carpets suggest yes, but damp not soaking like they've been under water.  Could it be water has soaked up and sideways from the garage through the foundations?

Based on the actual wording you quoted from the PIF I definitely read it as flood water only entered the garage. I was confused when you posted the extract because to me it was at odds with the comments about wet carpets. Missing out "via" makes a huge difference.