Negotiations advice needed urgently - Price agreed but seller misled us!

TBagpuss

I don't think there's any evidence they misled you - it sounds as though the new houses are on a different road and there's another row of houses in between - it may well be that they didn't think that counted as 'nearby' . Bit in any event, it would only really be relevant if you had already exchanged.

You now have the information, you need to firstly decide whether it means you no longer want the house, in which case, say so and strt looking again, or if you do still want the house but feel that the new homes will make a significant difference to the value, in which case you can offer a reduced price.  Since either you or the seller can pll out or seek to renegotiate any point up to exchange, the question is then how much less to *you* think it is worth, and are you willing to lose the house if the sellers won't accept a lower figure? 

Maybe think about whether you actually object to the existence of the additional l houses or if it's just potential disruption while they are being built which you are concerned about? Having some affordable housing is very common when new houses are being built. It may mean homes for rent so locals aren't priced out, it may be shared ownership properties - there's no particular reason it would have a significant impact on the value of the house you are buying, especially as 'your' house is an ex-council property , which is probably more likely to affect the value than the presence of a new estate a couple of streets away. 

The covenants sound fairly standard but talk to your solicitor to check whether there's anything out of the ordinary or which might cause problems.

user1977

deano2099 said:

There's no mythical "right" or even "fair" answer. Have you had a survey done with your own valuation?

The fair answer is what effect these points have on the objective market value of the property. And like I said at the start, I think the answer is "none at all".

JReacher1

Section62 said:

JReacher1 said:

I don’t think that’s right. Maybe it’s council specific but my council puts online in the planning documents copies of every letter it sends and which address got it. No names obviously just addresses. 

The point is that what the council thinks it has sent isn't proof it has been received, let alone looked at.

Its a very pedantic point ;-) 

Section62

JReacher1 said:

Section62 said:

JReacher1 said:

I don’t think that’s right. Maybe it’s council specific but my council puts online in the planning documents copies of every letter it sends and which address got it. No names obviously just addresses. 

The point is that what the council thinks it has sent isn't proof it has been received, let alone looked at.

Its a very pedantic point ;-) 

Perhaps, but in this case it is an important point, since if the OP wishes to rely on it as proof of their allegation

(which appears to amount to an accusation of the offence of "Fraud by false representation" (Fraud Act 2006, S2)) then there needs to be an understanding of the difference between being sent a communication and its receipt (and being read and understood).

The OP cannot prove (from a list of who should have been consulted) that the vendor was aware of the proposed development, and therefore could leave themselves vulnerable to action for defamation.  In this situation I feel pedantry would be more than justified.

JReacher1

Section62 said:

JReacher1 said:

Section62 said:

JReacher1 said:

I don’t think that’s right. Maybe it’s council specific but my council puts online in the planning documents copies of every letter it sends and which address got it. No names obviously just addresses. 

The point is that what the council thinks it has sent isn't proof it has been received, let alone looked at.

Its a very pedantic point ;-) 

Perhaps, but in this case it is an important point, since if the OP wishes to rely on it as proof of their allegation

(which appears to amount to an accusation of the offence of "Fraud by false representation" (Fraud Act 2006, S2)) then there needs to be an understanding of the difference between being sent a communication and its receipt (and being read and understood).

The OP cannot prove (from a list of who should have been consulted) that the vendor was aware of the proposed development, and therefore could leave themselves vulnerable to action for defamation.  In this situation I feel pedantry would be more than justified.

Am I missing something here? I thought the OP just wanted to lower their offer,  not take the seller to court for committing fraud. 

Section62

JReacher1 said:

Section62 said:

JReacher1 said:

Section62 said:

JReacher1 said:

I don’t think that’s right. Maybe it’s council specific but my council puts online in the planning documents copies of every letter it sends and which address got it. No names obviously just addresses. 

The point is that what the council thinks it has sent isn't proof it has been received, let alone looked at.

Its a very pedantic point ;-) 

Perhaps, but in this case it is an important point, since if the OP wishes to rely on it as proof of their allegation

(which appears to amount to an accusation of the offence of "Fraud by false representation" (Fraud Act 2006, S2)) then there needs to be an understanding of the difference between being sent a communication and its receipt (and being read and understood).

The OP cannot prove (from a list of who should have been consulted) that the vendor was aware of the proposed development, and therefore could leave themselves vulnerable to action for defamation.  In this situation I feel pedantry would be more than justified.

Am I missing something here? I thought the OP just wanted to lower their offer,  not take the seller to court for committing fraud. 

I didn't say the OP wanted to take the vendor to court for committing fraud.

The OP's opening gambit in the thread is that the vendor (allegedly) misrepresented the property.

I don't believe the OP meant to accuse the vendor of a serious offence, but if the vendor interprets a request to reopen negotiations (because they allegedly knowingly misrepresented the property) as such an accusation, then the OP may find themselves in the position of having to prove their claim.

What they have posted about the planning/development doesn't prove their claim.

Helpful and well meaning suggestions from forum members about who the council has/should have consulted also wouldn't prove a claim that the vendor was aware of the development and knowingly withheld that information.

People have sued over a lot less.

When it comes to 'legal' stuff, don't claim what you cannot prove.  And accusing the other party to a property transaction negotiation of 'misrepresentation' is a terrible negotiating tactic in any event.

The best advice to the OP is to drop the stuff about misrepresentation and simply tell the vendor that they are now aware of additional information which changes what they are willing to pay. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that.

JReacher1

Section62 said:

JReacher1 said:

Section62 said:

JReacher1 said:

Section62 said:

JReacher1 said:

I don’t think that’s right. Maybe it’s council specific but my council puts online in the planning documents copies of every letter it sends and which address got it. No names obviously just addresses. 

The point is that what the council thinks it has sent isn't proof it has been received, let alone looked at.

Its a very pedantic point ;-) 

Perhaps, but in this case it is an important point, since if the OP wishes to rely on it as proof of their allegation

(which appears to amount to an accusation of the offence of "Fraud by false representation" (Fraud Act 2006, S2)) then there needs to be an understanding of the difference between being sent a communication and its receipt (and being read and understood).

The OP cannot prove (from a list of who should have been consulted) that the vendor was aware of the proposed development, and therefore could leave themselves vulnerable to action for defamation.  In this situation I feel pedantry would be more than justified.

Am I missing something here? I thought the OP just wanted to lower their offer,  not take the seller to court for committing fraud. 

I didn't say the OP wanted to take the vendor to court for committing fraud.

The OP's opening gambit in the thread is that the vendor (allegedly) misrepresented the property.

I don't believe the OP meant to accuse the vendor of a serious offence, but if the vendor interprets a request to reopen negotiations (because they allegedly knowingly misrepresented the property) as such an accusation, then the OP may find themselves in the position of having to prove their claim.

What they have posted about the planning/development doesn't prove their claim.

Helpful and well meaning suggestions from forum members about who the council has/should have consulted also wouldn't prove a claim that the vendor was aware of the development and knowingly withheld that information.

People have sued over a lot less.

When it comes to 'legal' stuff, don't claim what you cannot prove.  And accusing the other party to a property transaction negotiation of 'misrepresentation' is a terrible negotiating tactic in any event.

The best advice to the OP is to drop the stuff about misrepresentation and simply tell the vendor that they are now aware of additional information which changes what they are willing to pay. It doesn't need to be more complicated

If the OP has proof that the council sent a letter to the seller then they are not going to be sued by the seller for asking why they didn’t put this information on the form. If the seller says they never read the letter then the OP would have to take that as face value as they will have no evidence to the contrary. 

Section62

JReacher1 said:

Section62 said:

JReacher1 said:

Section62 said:

JReacher1 said:

Section62 said:

JReacher1 said:

I don’t think that’s right. Maybe it’s council specific but my council puts online in the planning documents copies of every letter it sends and which address got it. No names obviously just addresses. 

The point is that what the council thinks it has sent isn't proof it has been received, let alone looked at.

Its a very pedantic point ;-) 

Perhaps, but in this case it is an important point, since if the OP wishes to rely on it as proof of their allegation

(which appears to amount to an accusation of the offence of "Fraud by false representation" (Fraud Act 2006, S2)) then there needs to be an understanding of the difference between being sent a communication and its receipt (and being read and understood).

The OP cannot prove (from a list of who should have been consulted) that the vendor was aware of the proposed development, and therefore could leave themselves vulnerable to action for defamation.  In this situation I feel pedantry would be more than justified.

Am I missing something here? I thought the OP just wanted to lower their offer,  not take the seller to court for committing fraud. 

I didn't say the OP wanted to take the vendor to court for committing fraud.

The OP's opening gambit in the thread is that the vendor (allegedly) misrepresented the property.

I don't believe the OP meant to accuse the vendor of a serious offence, but if the vendor interprets a request to reopen negotiations (because they allegedly knowingly misrepresented the property) as such an accusation, then the OP may find themselves in the position of having to prove their claim.

What they have posted about the planning/development doesn't prove their claim.

Helpful and well meaning suggestions from forum members about who the council has/should have consulted also wouldn't prove a claim that the vendor was aware of the development and knowingly withheld that information.

People have sued over a lot less.

When it comes to 'legal' stuff, don't claim what you cannot prove.  And accusing the other party to a property transaction negotiation of 'misrepresentation' is a terrible negotiating tactic in any event.

The best advice to the OP is to drop the stuff about misrepresentation and simply tell the vendor that they are now aware of additional information which changes what they are willing to pay. It doesn't need to be more complicated

If the OP has proof that the council sent a letter to the seller then they are not going to be sued by the seller for asking why they didn’t put this information on the form. If the seller says they never read the letter then the OP would have to take that as face value as they will have no evidence to the contrary. 

And my point about why the list of consultees/copies of letters is not helpful to the OP's case is that the OP will never get that proof (BIB) as the council itself is unlikely to be able to prove the letters were sent, let alone received.

When we send out letters/notices (by Royal Mail) there is an expectation that they will be received.  In specific circumstances we are allowed to deem that they have been delivered after 'x' days of posting them.  But we cannot prove they were delivered, unless by hand by a council officer.  Planning consultation letters are typically sent out in the general post (not specifically recorded), or in some cases now authorities are asking the applicant (to make arrangements) to print them and deliver them to the local consultees.

The second (non-bold) sentence is the crux of the matter.  The OP will never be able to prove that the vendor was aware of the development proposals - other than if the vendor has responded to the consultation. (or confesses)

I.e. the list of consultees doesn't help.  The list of responses (if any) might.

JReacher1

Section62 said:

JReacher1 said:

Section62 said:

JReacher1 said:

Section62 said:

JReacher1 said:

Section62 said:

JReacher1 said:

I don’t think that’s right. Maybe it’s council specific but my council puts online in the planning documents copies of every letter it sends and which address got it. No names obviously just addresses. 

The point is that what the council thinks it has sent isn't proof it has been received, let alone looked at.

Its a very pedantic point ;-) 

Perhaps, but in this case it is an important point, since if the OP wishes to rely on it as proof of their allegation

(which appears to amount to an accusation of the offence of "Fraud by false representation" (Fraud Act 2006, S2)) then there needs to be an understanding of the difference between being sent a communication and its receipt (and being read and understood).

The OP cannot prove (from a list of who should have been consulted) that the vendor was aware of the proposed development, and therefore could leave themselves vulnerable to action for defamation.  In this situation I feel pedantry would be more than justified.

Am I missing something here? I thought the OP just wanted to lower their offer,  not take the seller to court for committing fraud. 

I didn't say the OP wanted to take the vendor to court for committing fraud.

The OP's opening gambit in the thread is that the vendor (allegedly) misrepresented the property.

I don't believe the OP meant to accuse the vendor of a serious offence, but if the vendor interprets a request to reopen negotiations (because they allegedly knowingly misrepresented the property) as such an accusation, then the OP may find themselves in the position of having to prove their claim.

What they have posted about the planning/development doesn't prove their claim.

Helpful and well meaning suggestions from forum members about who the council has/should have consulted also wouldn't prove a claim that the vendor was aware of the development and knowingly withheld that information.

People have sued over a lot less.

When it comes to 'legal' stuff, don't claim what you cannot prove.  And accusing the other party to a property transaction negotiation of 'misrepresentation' is a terrible negotiating tactic in any event.

The best advice to the OP is to drop the stuff about misrepresentation and simply tell the vendor that they are now aware of additional information which changes what they are willing to pay. It doesn't need to be more complicated

If the OP has proof that the council sent a letter to the seller then they are not going to be sued by the seller for asking why they didn’t put this information on the form. If the seller says they never read the letter then the OP would have to take that as face value as they will have no evidence to the contrary. 

And my point about why the list of consultees/copies of letters is not helpful to the OP's case is that the OP will never get that proof (BIB) as the council itself is unlikely to be able to prove the letters were sent, let alone received.

When we send out letters/notices (by Royal Mail) there is an expectation that they will be received.  In specific circumstances we are allowed to deem that they have been delivered after 'x' days of posting them.  But we cannot prove they were delivered, unless by hand by a council officer.  Planning consultation letters are typically sent out in the general post (not specifically recorded), or in some cases now authorities are asking the applicant (to make arrangements) to print them and deliver them to the local consultees.

The second (non-bold) sentence is the crux of the matter.  The OP will never be able to prove that the vendor was aware of the development proposals - other than if the vendor has responded to the consultation. (or confesses)

I.e. the list of consultees doesn't help.  The list of responses (if any) might.

I honestly think you're just arguing for the sake of it ;-)

This is not a legal case being heard in any court of law.  The OP seems to want to know whether or not the seller knew about the housing estate.  If the OP goes on the council's planning portal it will say who got sent letters.  If the OP's seller is listed as someone who received a letter then in the balance of probabilities then the seller did know about the development.  So I personally would question what else the seller may have "forgotten" to share.  I would also not feel guilty about revising my offer.

Now we all accept that in a legal court case that just because the council say they sent the letter that this is not proof that the OP did actually receive the letter but apart from you nobody is suggesting that anyone go to court over this:-).

Not everything posted on MSE needs to become litigious :-)

Section62

JReacher1 said:

Section62 said:

JReacher1 said:

If the OP has proof that the council sent a letter to the seller then they are not going to be sued by the seller for asking why they didn’t put this information on the form. If the seller says they never read the letter then the OP would have to take that as face value as they will have no evidence to the contrary. 

And my point about why the list of consultees/copies of letters is not helpful to the OP's case is that the OP will never get that proof (BIB) as the council itself is unlikely to be able to prove the letters were sent, let alone received.

When we send out letters/notices (by Royal Mail) there is an expectation that they will be received.  In specific circumstances we are allowed to deem that they have been delivered after 'x' days of posting them.  But we cannot prove they were delivered, unless by hand by a council officer.  Planning consultation letters are typically sent out in the general post (not specifically recorded), or in some cases now authorities are asking the applicant (to make arrangements) to print them and deliver them to the local consultees.

The second (non-bold) sentence is the crux of the matter.  The OP will never be able to prove that the vendor was aware of the development proposals - other than if the vendor has responded to the consultation. (or confesses)

I.e. the list of consultees doesn't help.  The list of responses (if any) might.

I honestly think you're just arguing for the sake of it ;-)

This is not a legal case being heard in any court of law.  The OP seems to want to know whether or not the seller knew about the housing estate.  If the OP goes on the council's planning portal it will say who got sent letters.  If the OP's seller is listed as someone who received a letter then in the balance of probabilities then the seller did know about the development.  So I personally would question what else the seller may have "forgotten" to share.  I would also not feel guilty about revising my offer.

Now we all accept that in a legal court case that just because the council say they sent the letter that this is not proof that the OP did actually receive the letter but apart from you nobody is suggesting that anyone go to court over this:-).

Not everything posted on MSE needs to become litigious :-)

BIB1 - I'm just replying to posts claiming/suggesting things which are misleading or inaccurate.

BIB2 - Can you give an example of any local planning authority's website which lists all the individual neighbours who "received" a letter?

You dismissed it as pedantry, but the difference between "sent" and "received" is important here.  You've used both in successive sentences in the post quoted above, possibly still not appreciating the difference.

The bottom line is the OP will never be able to prove the vendor knew about the development, except in the situations I described.

I'm not suggesting "anyone go to court over this".  I'm pointing out the potential risk the OP has in making a claim they cannot prove, and that people claiming the council website can provide them with that proof don't appear to appreciate the (legal) nuances.

Not forgetting the bigger picture point that accusing the other side of "misrepresentation" is a bad idea if you want to get a better deal out of them.