Vendor lied on property form about flooding three months after buying my house has flooded

silvercar

It is even more complicated by the insurance implications. If your son knew that it had flooded previously then he should have declared this when taking out insurance. If he didn't know, then he could rely on the vendor's statement that it hadn't flooded and his insurers could well meet the whole claim including alternative accommodation.

He doesn't want to be caught in the middle with him stating he knew and the vendor stating she didn't.

Skiddaw1

Sadly, OP, I agree with the concensus- rotten though it is, I think your son will just have to chalk this one up to experience and concentrate on sorting out the damage (and hopefully future-proofing any risks of further flooding). I hope karma catches up with the seller one day but there's no point in throwing good money after bad.

Cazzy1964

Skiddaw1 said: hi

Sadly, OP, I agree with the concensus- rotten though it is, I think your son will just have to chalk this one up to experience and concentrate on sorting out the damage (and hopefully future-proofing any risks of further flooding). I hope karma catches up with the seller one day but there's no point in throwing good money after bad.

Thanks,  he’s going to get some free advice from his union and take it from there 

Cazzy1964

silvercar said:

It is even more complicated by the insurance implications. If your son knew that it had flooded previously then he should have declared this when taking out insurance. If he didn't know, then he could rely on the vendor's statement that it hadn't flooded and his insurers could well meet the whole claim including alternative accommodation.

He doesn't want to be caught in the middle with him stating he knew and the vendor stating she didn't.

Insurance already know .. hes already told them the story when he phoned them up three months ago. 

He told them he’d been told by the neighbours the property had flooded .. they cancelled his original insurance and he went with someone else, he also told them what had happened so there’s no issue with the insurance. 

pinkshoes

You need to think of your odds of winning in court.

Even if they were aware and did lie, they're not going to admit that, and you can't prove they knew. Even if it says it flooded on the previous form, it's irrelevant as they will say they didn't read the form.

If you're son even thought the flood defence things were for a drop down wheelchair ramp, then the vendor could say they didn't know too. 

You're better off chasing the insurance for full payment, then future proofing the house against flooding.

Same question as before: Given the house has flooded twice previously, has the house been future flood proofed already? I know there's a flood gate at the door, but have the sockets been raised? Has the downstairs been fitted with suitable flooring that can be wiped clean and not ruined?

Cazzy1964

Even if she said she didnt read the form the solicitor would have read it and written to the seller to ask more questions and then sent the information on to her .. otherwise he wouldn’t be doing his job properly. 

No only the flood defences on each door at the moment. He will be getting a flood expert in when his house is finally sorted 

tooldle

What caused the flooding? My folks were flooded by surface water. Dad dug a sump in the garden and fitted a pump with float switch. A simple measure that saved their property on a number of occasions, the neighbours chose to take no action and were flooded out. If the water rises through the floors, I’d suggest something similar

Section62

Cazzy1964 said:

Even if she said she didnt read the form the solicitor would have read it and written to the seller to ask more questions and then sent the information on to her .. otherwise he wouldn’t be doing his job properly.

Again, that is irrelevant to your son's situation.  But the solicitor doesn't have to write to anybody if the client(s) isn't/aren't interested, and even if they did, your son has no right to see that correspondence.

It is understandable you want it to be true, but it simply isn't.

Cazzy1964 said:

No only the flood defences on each door at the moment. He will be getting a flood expert in when his house is finally sorted

Also again, the time for your son to be sorting out the flood defences is now.  Waiting to sort the house out risks having another flood in the interim and causing more damage to the property and potentially undoing the work already done.  You son will have no claim against the vendor for further damage now he knows about the flooding, and his insurance company may not pay out if they consider him to be negligent.

Stopping the property flooding again should be at the top of his 'things to do' list... not chasing a likely futile plan to prove the vendor and/or their solicitor knew about the flood risk.

Cazzy1964

So this statement regarding misinterpretation is untrue 

Section62

Cazzy1964 said:

So this statement regarding misinterpretation is untrue 

Does that source say anything about the buyer being able to make the solicitor the vendor used when they were buying the property hand over correspondence they had with their client on a professional privilege basis?