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

diystarter7

JReacher1 said:

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 :-)

Hi

I completely agree with your finding. Things like this distract from the help an OP is requesting and IMO unnecessary and unhelpful in general. We need to give OP's some credit and responsibility of doing their own research and decision-making and not distract from the main question.

Thanks 

jonnydeppiwish!

The op says they’ve started building the houses so the vendor was correct in saying they knew nothing about any proposals as this building site had already past PP if they are building it. Therefore it’s not a proposal it’s an actual entity that the buyer’s solicitor should have picked up in the searches.

Section62

diystarter7 said:

JReacher1 said:

Section62 said:

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 :-)

I completely agree with your finding. Things like this distract from the help an OP is requesting and IMO unnecessary and unhelpful in general. We need to give OP's some credit and responsibility of doing their own research and decision-making and not distract from the main question.

The first requirement for a forum like this to be useful is for the information to be accurate.

There's no point people using a forum for advice if what they read is wrong and misleading.

The OP has had good advice about how to proceed with a renegotiation of the agreed sale price, and several posters have been saying the same thing: that the 'misrepresentation' angle doesn't help their position.

Posts that claim/suggest (incorrectly) that the OP could prove the misrepresentation don't help the OP.

diystarter7

jonnydeppiwish! said:

The op says they’ve started building the houses so the vendor was correct in saying they knew nothing about any proposals as this building site had already past PP if they are building it. Therefore it’s not a proposal it’s an actual entity that the buyer’s solicitor should have picked up in the searches.

Hi
That's what I said, its not up to the seller and the TA6 forum covers it but we do not know if the seller knew.

A few years ago we went to see a friend of the family, these people mind their own business, go to work, come home go to work type lot.  My sister asked them what the thought the new development was goin up in place of a few large mansion around the corner. They had no idea as they never went that way, 2 mins walk from their place

thanks

JReacher1

Section62 said:

diystarter7 said:

JReacher1 said:

Section62 said:

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 :-)

I completely agree with your finding. Things like this distract from the help an OP is requesting and IMO unnecessary and unhelpful in general. We need to give OP's some credit and responsibility of doing their own research and decision-making and not distract from the main question.

The first requirement for a forum like this to be useful is for the information to be accurate.

There's no point people using a forum for advice if what they read is wrong and misleading.

The OP has had good advice about how to proceed with a renegotiation of the agreed sale price, and several posters have been saying the same thing: that the 'misrepresentation' angle doesn't help their position.

Posts that claim/suggest (incorrectly) that the OP could prove the misrepresentation don't help the OP.

In your eagerness to demonstrate your legal knowledge (which I admit is good) you keep on overlooking the fact that this is not a legal case and apart from you I don't believe anyone has mentioned that the OP wants to legally prove anything :-).  They are not going to court and they don't want to go to court so I am unsure why you keep on banging on about the fact that they won't be able to prove misrepresentation!

Sorry been out but on your other response you said you wanted to see an example of a local council that published the letters it sent.  Here is one from Chorley council

https://planning.chorley.gov.uk/online-applications/files/4A94AE472B804728EB0D70832AAF5A11/pdf/22_00631_FULMAJ-NEIGHBOUR_LETTER_-_INITIAL_CONSULTATION-1015888.pdf

You seem to think it is completely useless but personally if I was the OP I would be interested to see the planning application and as to whether the sellers of the property were included in the communication plan.  I actually suspect based on the original post that they probably weren't included.

EssexHebridean

I believe the point being made was not that he OP might want to prove something in court, more that they could find themselves on the receiving end of action for inadvertently falsely accusing the seller of an offence - leading to the seller seeking recourse to clear their name as a result. 

In many things, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. IMO this is never truer than when either medical, or legal matters are under discussion.

Section62

JReacher1 said:

In your eagerness to demonstrate your legal knowledge (which I admit is good) you keep on overlooking the fact that this is not a legal case and apart from you I don't believe anyone has mentioned that the OP wants to legally prove anything :-).  They are not going to court and they don't want to go to court so I am unsure why you keep on banging on about the fact that they won't be able to prove misrepresentation!

I'm well aware this isn't (yet) a legal case.

The point I have made (several times) is that accusing someone of "misrepresent[ation]" (in relation to a legal matter such as a property transaction) is a serious matter. It isn't something to be done lightly.  You don't know how the other party will react to such an allegation.  Some people will reach for the nearest solicitor.

If that happens, the OP could be in a position where they had to prove their allegation is true.

I'm not saying that will happen, just pointing out what you are suggesting will help them to prove their case would fail to do so.

JReacher1 said:

Sorry been out but on your other response you said you wanted to see an example of a local council that published the letters it sent.  Here is one from Chorley council

https://planning.chorley.gov.uk/online-applications/files/4A94AE472B804728EB0D70832AAF5A11/pdf/22_00631_FULMAJ-NEIGHBOUR_LETTER_-_INITIAL_CONSULTATION-1015888.pdf

I asked about "any local planning authority's website which lists all the individual neighbours who "received" a letter".

Your link is returning a "Document Unavailable" error, but I suspect it doesn't contain a list of individual neighbours who "received" a letter.  (Note: "sent" =/= "received")

JReacher1 said:

You seem to think it is completely useless but personally if I was the OP I would be interested to see the planning application and as to whether the sellers of the property were included in the communication plan.  I actually suspect based on the original post that they probably weren't included.

I haven't said it would be "completely useless" to do this.

What I have said is that any list of people responding to the council is where useful information might be found.

The "communication plan" or any list of addresses the council thinks it has written to doesn't help establish what the vendor knew when completing the TA6.

jonnydeppiwish!

diystarter7 said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

The op says they’ve started building the houses so the vendor was correct in saying they knew nothing about any proposals as this building site had already past PP if they are building it. Therefore it’s not a proposal it’s an actual entity that the buyer’s solicitor should have picked up in the searches.

Hi
That's what I said, its not up to the seller and the TA6 forum covers it but we do not know if the seller knew.

A few years ago we went to see a friend of the family, these people mind their own business, go to work, come home go to work type lot.  My sister asked them what the thought the new development was goin up in place of a few large mansion around the corner. They had no idea as they never went that way, 2 mins walk from their place

thanks

I think you’re getting slightly confused. If building has already started, there is no proposal - it’s fact. The question is not about fact but an awareness of a potential to build on the site. Planning permission would have been granted in advance of any building work starting therefore this is a nonstarter in terms of a proposal.

JReacher1

Section62 said:

JReacher1 said:

In your eagerness to demonstrate your legal knowledge (which I admit is good) you keep on overlooking the fact that this is not a legal case and apart from you I don't believe anyone has mentioned that the OP wants to legally prove anything :-).  They are not going to court and they don't want to go to court so I am unsure why you keep on banging on about the fact that they won't be able to prove misrepresentation!

I'm well aware this isn't (yet) a legal case.

The point I have made (several times) is that accusing someone of "misrepresent[ation]" (in relation to a legal matter such as a property transaction) is a serious matter. It isn't something to be done lightly.  You don't know how the other party will react to such an allegation.  Some people will reach for the nearest solicitor.

If that happens, the OP could be in a position where they had to prove their allegation is true.

I'm not saying that will happen, just pointing out what you are suggesting will help them to prove their case would fail to do so.

JReacher1 said:

Sorry been out but on your other response you said you wanted to see an example of a local council that published the letters it sent.  Here is one from Chorley council

https://planning.chorley.gov.uk/online-applications/files/4A94AE472B804728EB0D70832AAF5A11/pdf/22_00631_FULMAJ-NEIGHBOUR_LETTER_-_INITIAL_CONSULTATION-1015888.pdf

I asked about "any local planning authority's website which lists all the individual neighbours who "received" a letter".

Your link is returning a "Document Unavailable" error, but I suspect it doesn't contain a list of individual neighbours who "received" a letter.  (Note: "sent" =/= "received")

JReacher1 said:

You seem to think it is completely useless but personally if I was the OP I would be interested to see the planning application and as to whether the sellers of the property were included in the communication plan.  I actually suspect based on the original post that they probably weren't included.

I haven't said it would be "completely useless" to do this.

What I have said is that any list of people responding to the council is where useful information might be found.

The "communication plan" or any list of addresses the council thinks it has written to doesn't help establish what the vendor knew when completing the TA6.

Oh dear.  I think we should just draw a line under this as you don't seem to understand that there is no legal case and there never will be a legal case in this scenario.  

If you actually read the OP's post although the OP does say that they believe the seller misrepresented on the form they don't say they are going to accuse the seller of misrepresentation.  They are purely asking whether they should reduce the price they offered because of this new development being built (as well as some covenants they don't agree with).  As the OP does not appear to be making any allegation's of misrepresentation they don't need to provide any evidence that proves this so pretty much every one of your points has been a waste of time.

On a side note I do enjoy threads on this forum.  It's great how threads about whether people should reduce their offer leads to complicated legal cases where one party is filing for fraud and the opposing party is filing a counter claim for slander.  Bet the OP didn't expect this when they asked whether they should reduce their offer due to a nearby planning permission issue :-)

Section62

JReacher1 said:

Oh dear.  I think we should just draw a line under this as you don't seem to understand that there is no legal case and there never will be a legal case in this scenario.

In the post you just quoted I stated "I'm well aware this isn't (yet) a legal case."

None of us can say there never will be one. (Hence "Yet")

JReacher1 said:

If you actually read the OP's post although the OP does say that they believe the seller misrepresented on the form they don't say they are going to accuse the seller of misrepresentation.  They are purely asking whether they should reduce the price they offered because of this new development being built (as well as some covenants they don't agree with).  As the OP does not appear to be making any allegation's of misrepresentation they don't need to provide any evidence that proves this so pretty much every one of your points has been a waste of time.

The OP is not the only one who could read what is written in this thread. If one person reads this thread and decides not to accuse their vendor of misrepresentation without evidence to support that allegation then the posts won't have been a "waste of time". 

I would never regard anything which could potentially help another person understand something to be a "waste of time".  It is one of the reasons why I post here.