Seller lied on property information form about conservatory

Section62

Doozergirl said:

It would be nice to know what the question was, but I don't believe it has any bearing on anything at all.  

The pilot TA6 Part 1 amends the relevant question to "Have any of the following changes been made to the property or any part of it (including the garden), during your ownership?"

Which I guess reflects the fact many vendors have no clue what work was done on their property (say) 30 years ago. They can only reliably speak for work done during their ownership. Holding someone liable for not declaring a conservatory was added to a property 30 years previously isn't really fair, unless they owned the property at the time.

Without knowing for sure what the document/question was, the OP can't (yet) say the vendor was lying.

jwalrus9

@Doozergirl agreed this thread is far too long!  I'm not sure there is much more to be said on the matter, but thanks for everyone taking time to respond. 

Bendy_House

jwalrus9 said:

@Bendy_House you're right, there is no issue at present, but what if there is an issue going forward which could be very costly? Something structural that impacts on the integrity of the house or garage ...? Ok that's not to say that ticking yes would have made any difference, but the seller may then have had to acquire certain documentation or checks ...I don't know. I did wonder why someone would tick no, thinking perhaps people do this to avoid something or to hide something...hoping to draw on experience from people on here. I've only had responses to say "he forgot or didn't know". Fine, if no one can offer any explanation other than that, it is what it is. I choose not to believe that because it is not believable IMO. 

If that's your concern, then fair do's. But it's highly unlikely that the building of this conservatory will have had any structural impact whatsoever on the main house. The only possibility I can think of is if the opening out to the connie was widened or moved at the time, and this wasn't carried out correctly. As pointed out by others above, however, the possibility of this should have been picked up by your surveyor, and has nothing to do with whether the vendor ticked a box to say a connie 'exists'.

If the surveyor saw that the doors out to the connie were almost certainly the pre-existing exterior doors, then they wouldn't be concerned. If, instead, it's a larger, wider opening, then the surveyor should - I believe - have notice this and pointed it out for further investigation. But that's a 'surveyor' issue.

The connie has been there for quite a while. The main building presumably doesn't have cracks on that connie wall above the doors. Almost certainly your main hoosie is fine.

Moving forwards, if/when you come to replace it, you'll likely need to start with a clean sheet - ensure founds are to the required standard, that sort of stuff. The old connie will literally be history.

GDB2222

Section62 said:

jwalrus9 said:

Bendy_House you're right, there is no issue at present, but what if there is an issue going forward which could be very costly? Something structural that impacts on the integrity of the house or garage ...? Ok that's not to say that ticking yes would have made any difference, but the seller may then have had to acquire certain documentation or checks ...I don't know.

If there's something structural then that is what your survey is for.  The surveyor would see there was a conservatory and other alterations had been done. They may flag a risk if this work hasn't been done with the necessary consents.  If they haven't done so, then the liability may be with them rather than the vendor.

jwalrus9 said:

I did wonder why someone would tick no, thinking perhaps people do this to avoid something or to hide something...hoping to draw on experience from people on here. I've only had responses to say "he forgot or didn't know".

You've also had "honest mistake".  You've suggested you discount that possibility, but it doesn't mean it isn't the real reason.

If you get to court, expect the potential for the defendant's barrister to argue this is a mistake anyone could make, and in this case it had no consequences because you didn't see it before purchasing.

jwalrus9 said:

Fine, if no one can offer any explanation other than that, it is what it is. I choose not to believe that because it is not believable IMO. 

Up to you what you believe of course.  Some people in the legal profession might say it is not believable that you and your solicitor together didn't spot the discrepancy between the answers given and the material facts, before proceeding with this purchase.  It is conventional for buyers to be strongly encouraged to read the information given on a TA6 and to revert to their conveyancer with any queries.  Not everyone does of course, but if a court is asked to make a judgement based on credibility, the result may go either way based on what they hear and believe.

Can I just clarify a couple of points, please?

The TA6 form is part of the sale contract for the property. No seller is forced to fill it in, and quite often executors in probate sales (like this) refuse to answer, or are extremely circumspect.  That's because they don't want to make a mistake, even an honest one! They can be sued for mistakes, and it doesn't matter whether they are honest or not.

In this case, the sellers were asked two questions that they answered incorrectly. The questions were: 

Have any of the following changes been made to the whole or any part of the property (including the garden)?

(a) Building works (e.g. extension, loft or garage conversion, removal of internal walls). If Yes, please give details including dates of all work undertaken.
...
(d) Addition of a conservatory  

The executors (clearly incorrectly) answered no, although there's no reason to think that this was anything other than an honest mistake.

If the buyer acted on those incorrect answers, to his detriment, he is entitled to sue for his losses.  And that applies even if the mistake was honest. 

Of course, if it ever goes to court, there will be all sorts of issues raised, such as whether it was obvious that the conservatory was a new addition and hadn't been part of the original build. In other words, had the buyer really relied on the incorrect answers? In addition, there are some introductory comments in the form which could lead to arguments, eg:

The seller is only obliged to give answers based on their own information. They may not have knowledge of legal or technical matters. You should not expect the seller to have knowledge of, or give information about, matters prior to their ownership of the property.