I can't help but think I was mis-sold my house

lincroft1710

Jakeh_2 said:

sammyjammy said:

Jakeh_2 said:

Herzlos said:

Jakeh_2 said:

Herzlos said:

Unless you can prove some kind of deception then I'm not sure you'd have much argument unfortunately.

Most of the plans I've seen for the whole site would have shown the play park, as they usually make a big-ish deal of it in the marketting, though I'm surprised it's that busy as all of the parks I've seen in new build areas have been deserted.

You admittedly weren't to know that they all have one or where it'd be. But at the same time, even if there wasn't a park there and just empty space, kids could play there, or they could play in neighbours gardens or in the street.

What sort of compensation are you expecting? Enough to cover the cost of moving somewhere else? For better soundproofing?

I can't prove deception, but I can prove they were negligent and provided incorrect information to a very specific question.

It's true if it was an open space it would still have been used by kids which is absolutely fine. Between 3-8pm the park is in constant use and there is often 10-25 kids in the park at any one time. Had it been just a patch of grass I'm confident it'd be less busy as there are other areas of grass on the estate.

In an ideal world I would sell the property and move elsewhere. Any amount would be helpful.

Did you get their claim that it'd just be a path in writing? Because anything else would be hearsay.

Unfortunately without looking at the site no-one can comment on the plans, and you can't do that without exposing where you live.

The developer website for the site will usually contain an interactive map of the previous and current phases, which should mentioned a play area.

Of course, it may be that at the time they were telling the truth and it was only later changed to a play area, but whilst I think that's unlikely you can't disprove it unless you find earlier plans with the play area included.

Obviously too late for you now, but developers don't really leave blank spaces in developments unless there's no way to avoid them, so I'd assume any open space between houses will probably be a play park unless there's already one somewhere else.

I have an email where I have asked: "what is doing done with the grass space between the two phases"

The builder replied with a picture with my plot, a few of my neighbours in the same phase, the grassy area, and a few houses in the first phase and said "it looks like it's just a path".

The interactive site plans only show the site plan for each phase. There is no estate-wide interactive site plan which shows the entirety of the development.

My bold - its hardly definitive and in no way gives you cause for complaint, legal or otherwise.

To say there is no cause for at least a complaint is ridiculous.

How can you confidently say that when it is literally misinformation from the person you're entering the contract with?

Problem 1 is that the builder did not state definitively that "it is a path", just "it looks like". Problem 2, you agreed to buy a "XXXX" house type and were sold a "XXXX" house type, had you been sold a "YYYY" house type instead, you may have been mis-sold. Problem 3, As I presume you didn't specify you didn't want to buy a house next to a play park, you were not mis-sold on those grounds.

Don't forget it would be up to you to prove you had been mis-sold, not for the builder to prove you were not mis-sold 

GDB2222

My DW complains about the noise of wood pigeons, whereas it doesn't bother me. So, noise is a very subjective thing, and I can understand that you feel upset about the noise of the children playing, as you didn't sign up to that. 

Going off at a tangent, I like the sound of children playing. I wonder whether it would be worth seeing a hypnotherapist or similar, and getting yourself conditioned not to mind so much about the noise? It's worth a thought, as it's a small fraction of the cost of moving.

km1500

all the above is true but if you buy house xxx and ask the builder what is going to be on the grass next door and the builder says looks like a path and the builder full well knows that a playground is going to be built there then that is definitely misrepresentation in my view

also the op may well not have specified that they didn't want to have a house next to a children's playground but equally they didn't specify they didn't want to house next to a crocodile pond or a cess pit or a quarry machine gun rmplacement... you don't need to specify these things you simply need to ask what is happening and if the builder knew but lied then that is not acceptable

Dustyevsky

sheramber said:

Why would the builder not know what it was rather than think it looks like something?

Was it the builder who replied or the salesperson or someone in the office?

I'm also inclined to think it was the latter.

When the builders moved onto the field next to a house I'd an interest in, I went to the sales office to see what was being built next door. I was shown the phase plan and noted it showed a landscaped open space. Later, the builders decided to vary the plan, made the relevant application and built a 3 storey 5 bed detached. On reflection, this suited me better than the open space.

At no time was I deliberately misinformed. Plans changed. I learned they often do.

user1977

lincroft1710 said:

Jakeh_2 said:

sammyjammy said:

Jakeh_2 said:

Herzlos said:

Jakeh_2 said:

Herzlos said:

Unless you can prove some kind of deception then I'm not sure you'd have much argument unfortunately.

Most of the plans I've seen for the whole site would have shown the play park, as they usually make a big-ish deal of it in the marketting, though I'm surprised it's that busy as all of the parks I've seen in new build areas have been deserted.

You admittedly weren't to know that they all have one or where it'd be. But at the same time, even if there wasn't a park there and just empty space, kids could play there, or they could play in neighbours gardens or in the street.

What sort of compensation are you expecting? Enough to cover the cost of moving somewhere else? For better soundproofing?

I can't prove deception, but I can prove they were negligent and provided incorrect information to a very specific question.

It's true if it was an open space it would still have been used by kids which is absolutely fine. Between 3-8pm the park is in constant use and there is often 10-25 kids in the park at any one time. Had it been just a patch of grass I'm confident it'd be less busy as there are other areas of grass on the estate.

In an ideal world I would sell the property and move elsewhere. Any amount would be helpful.

Did you get their claim that it'd just be a path in writing? Because anything else would be hearsay.

Unfortunately without looking at the site no-one can comment on the plans, and you can't do that without exposing where you live.

The developer website for the site will usually contain an interactive map of the previous and current phases, which should mentioned a play area.

Of course, it may be that at the time they were telling the truth and it was only later changed to a play area, but whilst I think that's unlikely you can't disprove it unless you find earlier plans with the play area included.

Obviously too late for you now, but developers don't really leave blank spaces in developments unless there's no way to avoid them, so I'd assume any open space between houses will probably be a play park unless there's already one somewhere else.

I have an email where I have asked: "what is doing done with the grass space between the two phases"

The builder replied with a picture with my plot, a few of my neighbours in the same phase, the grassy area, and a few houses in the first phase and said "it looks like it's just a path".

The interactive site plans only show the site plan for each phase. There is no estate-wide interactive site plan which shows the entirety of the development.

My bold - its hardly definitive and in no way gives you cause for complaint, legal or otherwise.

To say there is no cause for at least a complaint is ridiculous.

How can you confidently say that when it is literally misinformation from the person you're entering the contract with?

Problem 1 is that the builder did not state definitively that "it is a path", just "it looks like". Problem 2, you agreed to buy a "XXXX" house type and were sold a "XXXX" house type, had you been sold a "YYYY" house type instead, you may have been mis-sold. Problem 3, As I presume you didn't specify you didn't want to buy a house next to a play park, you were not mis-sold on those grounds.

Don't forget it would be up to you to prove you had been mis-sold, not for the builder to prove you were not mis-sold 

As I said above "mis-selling" isn't a helpful concept here. The OP had a contract with the developers, and it's unlikely that anything in the surrounding discussions could be deemed to become part of that contract. We can't give more helpful advice without knowing what the OP had actually signed up to in their contract.

Jakeh_2

user1977 said:

lincroft1710 said:

Jakeh_2 said:

sammyjammy said:

Jakeh_2 said:

Herzlos said:

Jakeh_2 said:

Herzlos said:

Unless you can prove some kind of deception then I'm not sure you'd have much argument unfortunately.

Most of the plans I've seen for the whole site would have shown the play park, as they usually make a big-ish deal of it in the marketting, though I'm surprised it's that busy as all of the parks I've seen in new build areas have been deserted.

You admittedly weren't to know that they all have one or where it'd be. But at the same time, even if there wasn't a park there and just empty space, kids could play there, or they could play in neighbours gardens or in the street.

What sort of compensation are you expecting? Enough to cover the cost of moving somewhere else? For better soundproofing?

I can't prove deception, but I can prove they were negligent and provided incorrect information to a very specific question.

It's true if it was an open space it would still have been used by kids which is absolutely fine. Between 3-8pm the park is in constant use and there is often 10-25 kids in the park at any one time. Had it been just a patch of grass I'm confident it'd be less busy as there are other areas of grass on the estate.

In an ideal world I would sell the property and move elsewhere. Any amount would be helpful.

Did you get their claim that it'd just be a path in writing? Because anything else would be hearsay.

Unfortunately without looking at the site no-one can comment on the plans, and you can't do that without exposing where you live.

The developer website for the site will usually contain an interactive map of the previous and current phases, which should mentioned a play area.

Of course, it may be that at the time they were telling the truth and it was only later changed to a play area, but whilst I think that's unlikely you can't disprove it unless you find earlier plans with the play area included.

Obviously too late for you now, but developers don't really leave blank spaces in developments unless there's no way to avoid them, so I'd assume any open space between houses will probably be a play park unless there's already one somewhere else.

I have an email where I have asked: "what is doing done with the grass space between the two phases"

The builder replied with a picture with my plot, a few of my neighbours in the same phase, the grassy area, and a few houses in the first phase and said "it looks like it's just a path".

The interactive site plans only show the site plan for each phase. There is no estate-wide interactive site plan which shows the entirety of the development.

My bold - its hardly definitive and in no way gives you cause for complaint, legal or otherwise.

To say there is no cause for at least a complaint is ridiculous.

How can you confidently say that when it is literally misinformation from the person you're entering the contract with?

Problem 1 is that the builder did not state definitively that "it is a path", just "it looks like". Problem 2, you agreed to buy a "XXXX" house type and were sold a "XXXX" house type, had you been sold a "YYYY" house type instead, you may have been mis-sold. Problem 3, As I presume you didn't specify you didn't want to buy a house next to a play park, you were not mis-sold on those grounds.

Don't forget it would be up to you to prove you had been mis-sold, not for the builder to prove you were not mis-sold 

As I said above "mis-selling" isn't a helpful concept here. The OP had a contract with the developers, and it's unlikely that anything in the surrounding discussions could be deemed to become part of that contract. We can't give more helpful advice without knowing what the OP had actually signed up to in their contract.

While I don't necessarily disagree with what you've said. If someone was led into the contract after being misadvised (whether purposely or not), how is that legal?

Jakeh_2

GDB2222 said:

My DW complains about the noise of wood pigeons, whereas it doesn't bother me. So, noise is a very subjective thing, and I can understand that you feel upset about the noise of the children playing, as you didn't sign up to that. 

Going off at a tangent, I like the sound of children playing. I wonder whether it would be worth seeing a hypnotherapist or similar, and getting yourself conditioned not to mind so much about the noise? It's worth a thought, as it's a small fraction of the cost of moving.

I don't distain any and all noise, sometimes it's nice to hear the kids having fun, but quite often it's intense.

I have an audio recording from my ring doorbell I'd love to share just to show I'm not being a pedant. Lol.

user1977

Jakeh_2 said:

user1977 said:

lincroft1710 said:

Jakeh_2 said:

sammyjammy said:

Jakeh_2 said:

Herzlos said:

Jakeh_2 said:

Herzlos said:

Unless you can prove some kind of deception then I'm not sure you'd have much argument unfortunately.

Most of the plans I've seen for the whole site would have shown the play park, as they usually make a big-ish deal of it in the marketting, though I'm surprised it's that busy as all of the parks I've seen in new build areas have been deserted.

You admittedly weren't to know that they all have one or where it'd be. But at the same time, even if there wasn't a park there and just empty space, kids could play there, or they could play in neighbours gardens or in the street.

What sort of compensation are you expecting? Enough to cover the cost of moving somewhere else? For better soundproofing?

I can't prove deception, but I can prove they were negligent and provided incorrect information to a very specific question.

It's true if it was an open space it would still have been used by kids which is absolutely fine. Between 3-8pm the park is in constant use and there is often 10-25 kids in the park at any one time. Had it been just a patch of grass I'm confident it'd be less busy as there are other areas of grass on the estate.

In an ideal world I would sell the property and move elsewhere. Any amount would be helpful.

Did you get their claim that it'd just be a path in writing? Because anything else would be hearsay.

Unfortunately without looking at the site no-one can comment on the plans, and you can't do that without exposing where you live.

The developer website for the site will usually contain an interactive map of the previous and current phases, which should mentioned a play area.

Of course, it may be that at the time they were telling the truth and it was only later changed to a play area, but whilst I think that's unlikely you can't disprove it unless you find earlier plans with the play area included.

Obviously too late for you now, but developers don't really leave blank spaces in developments unless there's no way to avoid them, so I'd assume any open space between houses will probably be a play park unless there's already one somewhere else.

I have an email where I have asked: "what is doing done with the grass space between the two phases"

The builder replied with a picture with my plot, a few of my neighbours in the same phase, the grassy area, and a few houses in the first phase and said "it looks like it's just a path".

The interactive site plans only show the site plan for each phase. There is no estate-wide interactive site plan which shows the entirety of the development.

My bold - its hardly definitive and in no way gives you cause for complaint, legal or otherwise.

To say there is no cause for at least a complaint is ridiculous.

How can you confidently say that when it is literally misinformation from the person you're entering the contract with?

Problem 1 is that the builder did not state definitively that "it is a path", just "it looks like". Problem 2, you agreed to buy a "XXXX" house type and were sold a "XXXX" house type, had you been sold a "YYYY" house type instead, you may have been mis-sold. Problem 3, As I presume you didn't specify you didn't want to buy a house next to a play park, you were not mis-sold on those grounds.

Don't forget it would be up to you to prove you had been mis-sold, not for the builder to prove you were not mis-sold 

As I said above "mis-selling" isn't a helpful concept here. The OP had a contract with the developers, and it's unlikely that anything in the surrounding discussions could be deemed to become part of that contract. We can't give more helpful advice without knowing what the OP had actually signed up to in their contract.

While I don't necessarily disagree with what you've said. If someone was led into the contract after being misadvised (whether purposely or not), how is that legal?

It's legal because you had the benefit of independent legal advice - much of "normal" consumer law simply doesn't apply to house purchases/sales. Your solicitor (presumably) advised you about the terms of the contract you were signing up to, and what due diligence they had carried out. I don't know whether that included anything about the use of neighbouring land, but I would expect they would at least have seen the planning permission for the development and could have told you where any play areas where designated as being.

Jakeh_2

user1977 said:

Jakeh_2 said:

user1977 said:

lincroft1710 said:

Jakeh_2 said:

sammyjammy said:

Jakeh_2 said:

Herzlos said:

Jakeh_2 said:

Herzlos said:

Unless you can prove some kind of deception then I'm not sure you'd have much argument unfortunately.

Most of the plans I've seen for the whole site would have shown the play park, as they usually make a big-ish deal of it in the marketting, though I'm surprised it's that busy as all of the parks I've seen in new build areas have been deserted.

You admittedly weren't to know that they all have one or where it'd be. But at the same time, even if there wasn't a park there and just empty space, kids could play there, or they could play in neighbours gardens or in the street.

What sort of compensation are you expecting? Enough to cover the cost of moving somewhere else? For better soundproofing?

I can't prove deception, but I can prove they were negligent and provided incorrect information to a very specific question.

It's true if it was an open space it would still have been used by kids which is absolutely fine. Between 3-8pm the park is in constant use and there is often 10-25 kids in the park at any one time. Had it been just a patch of grass I'm confident it'd be less busy as there are other areas of grass on the estate.

In an ideal world I would sell the property and move elsewhere. Any amount would be helpful.

Did you get their claim that it'd just be a path in writing? Because anything else would be hearsay.

Unfortunately without looking at the site no-one can comment on the plans, and you can't do that without exposing where you live.

The developer website for the site will usually contain an interactive map of the previous and current phases, which should mentioned a play area.

Of course, it may be that at the time they were telling the truth and it was only later changed to a play area, but whilst I think that's unlikely you can't disprove it unless you find earlier plans with the play area included.

Obviously too late for you now, but developers don't really leave blank spaces in developments unless there's no way to avoid them, so I'd assume any open space between houses will probably be a play park unless there's already one somewhere else.

I have an email where I have asked: "what is doing done with the grass space between the two phases"

The builder replied with a picture with my plot, a few of my neighbours in the same phase, the grassy area, and a few houses in the first phase and said "it looks like it's just a path".

The interactive site plans only show the site plan for each phase. There is no estate-wide interactive site plan which shows the entirety of the development.

My bold - its hardly definitive and in no way gives you cause for complaint, legal or otherwise.

To say there is no cause for at least a complaint is ridiculous.

How can you confidently say that when it is literally misinformation from the person you're entering the contract with?

Problem 1 is that the builder did not state definitively that "it is a path", just "it looks like". Problem 2, you agreed to buy a "XXXX" house type and were sold a "XXXX" house type, had you been sold a "YYYY" house type instead, you may have been mis-sold. Problem 3, As I presume you didn't specify you didn't want to buy a house next to a play park, you were not mis-sold on those grounds.

Don't forget it would be up to you to prove you had been mis-sold, not for the builder to prove you were not mis-sold 

As I said above "mis-selling" isn't a helpful concept here. The OP had a contract with the developers, and it's unlikely that anything in the surrounding discussions could be deemed to become part of that contract. We can't give more helpful advice without knowing what the OP had actually signed up to in their contract.

While I don't necessarily disagree with what you've said. If someone was led into the contract after being misadvised (whether purposely or not), how is that legal?

It's legal because you had the benefit of independent legal advice - much of "normal" consumer law simply doesn't apply to house purchases/sales. Your solicitor (presumably) advised you about the terms of the contract you were signing up to, and what due diligence they had carried out. I don't know whether that included anything about the use of neighbouring land, but I would expect they would at least have seen the planning permission for the development and could have told you where any play areas where designated as being.

Thank you.

My solicitor didn't mention anything to do with the neighbouring land.

I've had a look at the planning application for the estate and there is no park in any of the drawings. It's just empty space. Does that change anything?

user1977

Jakeh_2 said:

user1977 said:

Jakeh_2 said:

user1977 said:

lincroft1710 said:

Jakeh_2 said:

sammyjammy said:

Jakeh_2 said:

Herzlos said:

Jakeh_2 said:

Herzlos said:

Unless you can prove some kind of deception then I'm not sure you'd have much argument unfortunately.

Most of the plans I've seen for the whole site would have shown the play park, as they usually make a big-ish deal of it in the marketting, though I'm surprised it's that busy as all of the parks I've seen in new build areas have been deserted.

You admittedly weren't to know that they all have one or where it'd be. But at the same time, even if there wasn't a park there and just empty space, kids could play there, or they could play in neighbours gardens or in the street.

What sort of compensation are you expecting? Enough to cover the cost of moving somewhere else? For better soundproofing?

I can't prove deception, but I can prove they were negligent and provided incorrect information to a very specific question.

It's true if it was an open space it would still have been used by kids which is absolutely fine. Between 3-8pm the park is in constant use and there is often 10-25 kids in the park at any one time. Had it been just a patch of grass I'm confident it'd be less busy as there are other areas of grass on the estate.

In an ideal world I would sell the property and move elsewhere. Any amount would be helpful.

Did you get their claim that it'd just be a path in writing? Because anything else would be hearsay.

Unfortunately without looking at the site no-one can comment on the plans, and you can't do that without exposing where you live.

The developer website for the site will usually contain an interactive map of the previous and current phases, which should mentioned a play area.

Of course, it may be that at the time they were telling the truth and it was only later changed to a play area, but whilst I think that's unlikely you can't disprove it unless you find earlier plans with the play area included.

Obviously too late for you now, but developers don't really leave blank spaces in developments unless there's no way to avoid them, so I'd assume any open space between houses will probably be a play park unless there's already one somewhere else.

I have an email where I have asked: "what is doing done with the grass space between the two phases"

The builder replied with a picture with my plot, a few of my neighbours in the same phase, the grassy area, and a few houses in the first phase and said "it looks like it's just a path".

The interactive site plans only show the site plan for each phase. There is no estate-wide interactive site plan which shows the entirety of the development.

My bold - its hardly definitive and in no way gives you cause for complaint, legal or otherwise.

To say there is no cause for at least a complaint is ridiculous.

How can you confidently say that when it is literally misinformation from the person you're entering the contract with?

Problem 1 is that the builder did not state definitively that "it is a path", just "it looks like". Problem 2, you agreed to buy a "XXXX" house type and were sold a "XXXX" house type, had you been sold a "YYYY" house type instead, you may have been mis-sold. Problem 3, As I presume you didn't specify you didn't want to buy a house next to a play park, you were not mis-sold on those grounds.

Don't forget it would be up to you to prove you had been mis-sold, not for the builder to prove you were not mis-sold 

As I said above "mis-selling" isn't a helpful concept here. The OP had a contract with the developers, and it's unlikely that anything in the surrounding discussions could be deemed to become part of that contract. We can't give more helpful advice without knowing what the OP had actually signed up to in their contract.

While I don't necessarily disagree with what you've said. If someone was led into the contract after being misadvised (whether purposely or not), how is that legal?

It's legal because you had the benefit of independent legal advice - much of "normal" consumer law simply doesn't apply to house purchases/sales. Your solicitor (presumably) advised you about the terms of the contract you were signing up to, and what due diligence they had carried out. I don't know whether that included anything about the use of neighbouring land, but I would expect they would at least have seen the planning permission for the development and could have told you where any play areas where designated as being.

Thank you.

My solicitor didn't mention anything to do with the neighbouring land.

I've had a look at the planning application for the estate and there is no park in any of the drawings. It's just empty space. Does that change anything?

I doubt they built a play area without it going through planning in some form, so I suspect you haven't found the right thing.