How to answer Japanese Knotweed question as seller?

dadsarmy2

Hi all,

I'm selling a share of freehold flat in a well-maintained, purpose-built development. I have no reason to believe Japanese knotweed has ever been on the site; and as a well- managed block, it seems rather unlikely it has gone unspotted all these years including by co-owners.

Thus I have answered "No" to "Is the property affected by Japanese knotweed?", in the seller information form.

However recently I saw in the press, that sellers can now be sued for loss of value should a buyer ever find Japanese Knotweed. So should I change my answer to "not known" - as technically I never checked for it? The sale is so close the end, I am reluctant to upset things now by changing answers.

Thanks

Dustyevsky

 You have no knowledge the property is or has been affected by JK, so the answer is “No.”

Don't worry about scare articles in the press; they write half a dozen of those every day!

baser999

There was a recent case where a purchaser took his seller to court and won considerable damages having found ‘undeclared knotweed’. Believe the seller had answered no to that very question which was his downfall as professional opinion suggested he should have said not known and that would have saved him. 

serpico100

The Law Society updated their guidance on answering the question on form TA6 about Japanese Knotweed 3 years ago. Unless you are 100% sure that there is no JK you should answer “not known” There may be a chance that it exists but just not showing above ground. Please read this before giving a final answer on the form

https://www.mpamag.com/uk/news/general/the-law-society-changes-japanese-knotweed-guidance/384619

Dustyevsky

Not knowing about this change to the TA6, I stand corrected, but the article linked to above is badly edited and fails to shed as much light as it might on the subject:

"Where previously the guidance simply stated; “The seller should state whether the property is affected by Japanese Knotweed”, the revised form and guidance states: “The seller should state whether the property is affected by Japanese Knotweed."

Clear as day, eh?

Good that this is being highlighted. There were other distractions in 2020, and this certainly got past me

serpico100

Dustyevsky said:

Not knowing about this change to the TA6, I stand corrected, but the article linked to above is badly edited and fails to shed as much light as it might on the subject:

"Where previously the guidance simply stated; “The seller should state whether the property is affected by Japanese Knotweed”, the revised form and guidance states: “The seller should state whether the property is affected by Japanese Knotweed."

Clear as day, eh?

  Obviously the paragraph after this is the new guidance

Dustyevsky

serpico100 said:

Dustyevsky said:

Not knowing about this change to the TA6, I stand corrected, but the article linked to above is badly edited and fails to shed as much light as it might on the subject:

"Where previously the guidance simply stated; “The seller should state whether the property is affected by Japanese Knotweed”, the revised form and guidance states: “The seller should state whether the property is affected by Japanese Knotweed."

Clear as day, eh?

  Obviously the paragraph after this is the new guidance

Exactly. "Badly edited."

user1977

serpico100 said:

The Law Society updated their guidance on answering the question on form TA6 about Japanese Knotweed 3 years ago. Unless you are 100% sure that there is no JK you should answer “not known” There may be a chance that it exists but just not showing above ground. Please read this before giving a final answer on the form

https://www.mpamag.com/uk/news/general/the-law-society-changes-japanese-knotweed-guidance/384619

How could anyone ever be sure that there is no JK? It would make much more sense if they changed the question to "Are you aware of..." or "To the best of your knowledge..."

daveyjp

Not as far the seller is aware.  The buyer should undertake their own investigations.

mebu60

daveyjp said:

Not as far the seller is aware.  The buyer should undertake their own investigations.

The buyer can also walk away if they are unhappy about 'not known' as the answer. 

A better question would be something like "Is the seller aware . . . ." as user1977 also suggests above. If a binary yes or no is not required then everyone can just answer 'not known' which is pretty pointless. 

user1977

Of course "not known" is also potentially actionable if you have evidence that the seller did in fact know of there being JK. It's allowing "no" as an answer which seems absurd.