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

JReacher1

Section62 said:

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.

My apologies I think I’ve understood what the problem is now. Is English not your first language? The word “yet” means something has not happened at the present time but probably will happen. By using that word you are basically saying that this situation will probably lead to a court case. In reality it almost certainly won’t lead to a court case. 

I think that probably explains the misunderstanding and you don’t actually think this will lead to court case!

Have a great weekend 😃

diystarter7

JReacher1 said:

Section62 said:

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.

My apologies I think I’ve understood what the problem is now. Is English not your first language? The word “yet” means something has not happened at the present time but probably will happen. By using that word you are basically saying that this situation will probably lead to a court case. In reality it almost certainly won’t lead to a court case. 

I think that probably explains the misunderstanding and you don’t actually think this will lead to court case!

Have a great weekend 😃

Hi

Your post made me chuckle but is a valid post relevant, clear and helpful.

Thank you. 

BikingBud

JReacher1 said:

Section62 said:

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.

My apologies I think I’ve understood what the problem is now. Is English not your first language? The word “yet” means something has not happened at the present time but probably will happen. By using that word you are basically saying that this situation will probably lead to a court case. In reality it almost certainly won’t lead to a court case. 

I think that probably explains the misunderstanding and you don’t actually think this will lead to court case!

Have a great weekend 😃

Yet does not infer any level of probability, merely that it hasn't already occurred.  

Yet, going forward it might range between very likely or completely incredible that something may occur.

Anyway back on topic, this appears to be another reason to support legally binding property information packs. The required content and accuracy and date of availability of the TA6 is far less helpful that it should be and a simple improvement in this process, including the form being available on first listing a property would enhance and improve the conveyancing process. 

Section62

BikingBud said:

Anyway back on topic, this appears to be another reason to support legally binding property information packs. The required content and accuracy and date of availability of the TA6 is far less helpful that it should be and a simple improvement in this process, including the form being available on first listing a property would enhance and improve the conveyancing process. 

HIPs were tried and didn't really work out that well.  A key issue being the trust buyers put in the accuracy of the information.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/lack-of-trust-condemned-hips-to-failure

I'm not convinced that relying on a layperson to fill in a form to the best of their knowledge is ever going to be a substitute for buyers making their own enquiries.  In particular, relying on the property owner to give information about planned (neighbouring) developments doesn't make sense when there is a national system to record planning applications and approvals which is updated on a daily basis and is routinely checked as part of the search process.

If anything, what buyers need is a one-stop simple website where they can put in a postcode and see all the relevant planning cases (and constraints) or NSIPs that might impact on the property.

JReacher1

Section62 said:

JReacher1 said:

My apologies I think I’ve understood what the problem is now. Is English not your first language? The word “yet” means something has not happened at the present time but probably will happen. By using that word you are basically saying that this situation will probably lead to a court case. In reality it almost certainly won’t lead to a court case. 

I think that probably explains the misunderstanding and you don’t actually think this will lead to court case!

Have a great weekend 😃

I'm unsure where you got your definition of "yet" from, but my understanding is "probably will happen" could be something that is inferred from context, just as "might happen", "possibly happen" or "won't happen" are all equally valid possibilities. (As an example - "You don't seem to understand the point I made yet" - would allow for the possibility you never will.)

See here for a definition of "yet" which reflects my use of the word to suggest a possibility something might happen, but with no certainty implied or intended -

Context is the important thing with language, and with that in mind it should be noted that in the post where I said "I'm well aware this isn't (yet) a legal case." I also said "If that happens..." ('If' italicised for emphasis in the original) before removing any doubt with "I'm not saying that will happen...." (again, 'will' italicised for emphasis in the original).

So no, I am not saying "this situation will probably lead to a court case".  "Could possibly" or "might" would be the appropriate words here.

I would also like to suggest that as well as making sure what is posted about planning and/or legal matters is accurate, it would be a good idea for anyone offering advice on the use of the English language to take care to verify their information and own understanding before stating it as fact, so as to avoid the risk of misleading or misinforming other forum members.  Especially for those whose first language is not English and therefore may believe the advice without question.

You need to click into the actual definition in Collins and it shows what you’ve misunderstood. 

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/yet

You’ve clarified though what you mean so I think we both agree that you’ve not used the word “yet” correctly according to the Collins dictionary definition. 

BikingBud

Section62 said:

BikingBud said:

Anyway back on topic, this appears to be another reason to support legally binding property information packs. The required content and accuracy and date of availability of the TA6 is far less helpful that it should be and a simple improvement in this process, including the form being available on first listing a property would enhance and improve the conveyancing process. 

HIPs were tried and didn't really work out that well.  A key issue being the trust buyers put in the accuracy of the information.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/lack-of-trust-condemned-hips-to-failure

I'm not convinced that relying on a layperson to fill in a form to the best of their knowledge is ever going to be a substitute for buyers making their own enquiries.  In particular, relying on the property owner to give information about planned (neighbouring) developments doesn't make sense when there is a national system to record planning applications and approvals which is updated on a daily basis and is routinely checked as part of the search process.

If anything, what buyers need is a one-stop simple website where they can put in a postcode and see all the relevant planning cases (and constraints) or NSIPs that might impact on the property.

The fact that historically they were not fit for purpose tends to indicate it was the framework rather than the principle that was at fault.

"The new Government scrapped HIPs within days to provide certainty to the property market, and help it during the recovery by reducing the cost of selling a home. The end of HIPs has already seen a jump in the number of properties being put on the market, and will save consumers an estimated £870m over ten years.

The research, published today, by Ipsos Mori found that while over 90 per cent of people buying a house want information about its condition, fewer than one in six trust this information when it is provided by the seller."

Cynically it seems the VIs were happy to continue with the market being supported by the lowest level of consumer rights for any purchase as this allowed the HPI to continue unabated.

Realistically they serve a very important purpose and the mechanism should have been established that ensured they had credibility and could be used to seek recourse if facts were found to be inaccurate. 

The home report seems to have continued in Scotland without any issues!

Section62

BikingBud said:

The home report seems to have continued in Scotland without any issues!

Yes, although I often wonder whether part of the problem with HIPs was just tacking them onto the existing 'English' process, rather than doing something more root and brach to align England and Wales to the system in Scotland.  I guess there were too many 'political' considerations in the 1997-2004 period to allow the straightforward copying of a system which appears to work better.

cymruchris

To everyone discussing the ins and outs of dictionaries, word definitions and usages - We don't need in-depth English lessons - just a focus on the OP's question, to which they've had some very useful responses, to which they'll hopefully update us as to what they've decided to do, and the outcome.