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

MultiFuelBurner

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?

You might have to read through all the planning documents

S106 agreement comes to mind about facilities that have to be provided.

Jakeh_2

user1977 said:

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.

The plot thickens.

I've spoken with the chair of our Residents Association and it's come to light the builder did indeed lie to many residents saying that they owned the land, but they actually don't.

They sold that land to a separate company which appointed a Factor to build the park .. and better yet .. the residents (me included) paid for it! 

This is why it's not on the planning application drawings... 

Section62

MultiFuelBurner said:

Stranger things have happened, especially with a little local news coverage.

It really depends how far the OP wants to go with this.

You don't ask, you certainly won't get.

Publicising that you don't like children playing in a children's play area* may not have a positive outcome for the OP.

At best it might just make it harder to find a buyer when the OP decides to sell.

(*I appreciate the nuance of the OP's position, but we live in a world of social media where nuance doesn't count for much)

MultiFuelBurner

Jakeh_2 said:

user1977 said:

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.

The plot thickens.

I've spoken with the chair of our Residents Association and it's come to light the builder did indeed lie to many residents saying that they owned the land, but they actually don't.

They sold that land to a separate company which appointed a Factor to build the park .. and better yet .. the residents (me included) paid for it! 

This is why it's not on the planning application drawings... 

So they didn't lie to you then really? You haven't been mis-old just the person your communicated with said looks like a path(way)

Oh well that is bad luck.

Jakeh_2

Bad luck indeed. At least I'll be older and wiser next time.

I'll then come back the fourms to mock others in their misfortune along with you lovely bunch.

Thanks to those that have tried to help.

See you soon!

Section62

Jakeh_2 said:

Live in Scotland. I think I have two separate complaints? But don't know where to start.

Bought a new build from a well known builder 2 years ago. I asked several times, in person and by email what would be built on a grassy space infront of my house. The builder eventually replied with a picture of my plot and surrounding areas saying "it looks like it's just a path". The grassy area was bare.

For a bit more context, I was the first plot on the second phase of the development and the grassy patch is what separates the first and second phase.

Around 12 months ago the builder/factor comes along and builds a children's play park right outside my front door.

Neither the builder or solicitor (who's since been sacked) mentioned any play park. I wouldn't have bought this place.

From speaking to a couple of people in the first phase, who had been in their property for a couple of years, they were aware there were plans for a childs park. So it was always planned as far as permissions go.

I've tried my best to grin and bear it, but I'm at the end of my tether. The constant shouting and screaming from kids is too much and I can't enjoy my own home.

I want to record a complaint as I feel I'm due some form of compensation for being misled (which'd be put towards selling & moving costs) but realistically, am I wasting my time? Have I left it too long?

Perhaps I need more specialist advice from a qualified individual, but money is tight in today's world and the solicitors around my area don't appear to operate a No Win No Fee arrangement, or take client's whom are entitled to Legal Aid.

I'm stuck.

^Just in case.

If you don't own the land you have very little control over what other people do with it.  Even if there had never been a plan for a children's play area there was nothing you could do to stop someone in future deciding that was the perfect thing to use the open space for.  In fact you couldn't stop the children deciding for themselves to make the open space their regular playground, without the adults making any plans whatsoever.

MultiFuelBurner

Jakeh_2 said:

Bad luck indeed. At least I'll be older and wiser next time.

I'll then come back the fourms to mock others in their misfortune along with you lovely bunch.

Thanks to those that have tried to help.

See you soon!

Don't worry it probably won't end here.

We all learn from these things. The big house with a garden that overlooked ours and two neighbours was bought by a children's home for children with behavioural problems. 

I won't go into what we heard in that garden and had to put up with 24/7 as these were teenagers with behavioural problems. 

We bought with a family living there and.although a big house.never dreamed of what it may become. We moved out in 3 months.

We are very picky since then over property and lucky not to lose a lot of money.

Grumpy_chap

user1977 said:

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.

The Solicitor probably will not have advised about the neighbouring land unless the OP specifically asked.  Local Searches would not normally be down to the level of this detail. 

Did the OP specifically ask the Solicitor about the open space and what was proposed there?  If the OP did ask, the Solicitor should have made reasonable enquiries.  If the OP did not ask, the Solicitor will not make such enquiries.

It is no good saying that the Solicitor would have, could have, should have...  
Remember, Solicitors charge by the hour at a handsome rate for everything they do (even when the actual task is by a junior member of staff).  I am sure there would be numerous threads about excessive costs if Solicitors adopted the habit of going off to ask every little question that might be posed in every blind alley.

user1977

Grumpy_chap said:

user1977 said:

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.

The Solicitor probably will not have advised about the neighbouring land unless the OP specifically asked.  Local Searches would not normally be down to the level of this detail. 

Did the OP specifically ask the Solicitor about the open space and what was proposed there?  If the OP did ask, the Solicitor should have made reasonable enquiries.  If the OP did not ask, the Solicitor will not make such enquiries.

It is no good saying that the Solicitor would have, could have, should have...  
Remember, Solicitors charge by the hour at a handsome rate for everything they do (even when the actual task is by a junior member of staff).  I am sure there would be numerous threads about excessive costs if Solicitors adopted the habit of going off to ask every little question that might be posed in every blind alley.

I wasn't suggesting the solicitor ought to have gone into that level of detail, but they're the person with the information if a buyer was actually concerned about where a play area might be or what land the builders owned. And at the very least, certainly should have gone through the contract and pointed out the clauses saying that you can't rely on the shiny artist impressions etc in the sales brochures or anything else the builders have told you, unless it's actually in the contract.

GDB2222

km1500 said:

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

You mean morally unacceptable? Well, I guess you are right about that. I don’t think it helps the op though.