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

Grizebeck

If the OP/son wants to waste lots of money time and stress go for it
I'll put a wager on now that you will never get this information. 

Cazzy1964

Grizebeck said:

If the OP/son wants to waste lots of money time and stress go for it
I'll put a wager on now that you will never get this information. 

Ive already stated in an earlier post he’s getting free advice thru his Union first .. he’s no intention of instructing a solicitor if they tell him it’s not worth it .. 

Cazzy1964

snooksnj1 said:

Hi Cazzy1964 said:

Section62 said:

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?

No the solicitor needs to apply to the court to get them released 

Fantastic.  So go to the courthouse and have the judge issue a court order to release all the information you require from the Vendors Attorney, auction house.   If it's like the US there are lawyers milling about outside the courthouse looking for business.  I would do it now so you have the weekend to read all the lawyer correspondence. Bonus! clocks go back this weekend so you have an extra hour. 

There’s no need for sarcasm, I wish people would stop assuming he’s just gonna go for it and instruct a solicitor I’ve already stated he’s seeking free advice from the union .. before he does anything 

Cazzy1964

ReadingTim said:

Cazzy1964 said:

Local searches came back with nothing, home buyers report said no evidence of flooding, but it definitely has flooded as the two neighbours have confirmed it has as theirs did too.

Flooding is covered by the environmental search - what did that say?

The searches came back as none .. but underneath the paragraph it says just because it’s not on the searches doesn’t mean it hasn’t flooded 

MultiFuelBurner

If you do decide to go down the legal route the vendors did not hide the flood defenses and left them with the property. That will go in their favour.

Cazzy1964

MultiFuelBurner said:

If you do decide to go down the legal route the vendors did not hide the flood defenses and left them with the property. That will go in their favour.

Not sure why they put it hadn’t flooded .. I’m surprised the surveyor didn’t pick it up 

deano2099

General question: if a house has flood defenses, and deploys them, and there's a flood but the house is fine, has the house "flooded" in the context of the question on the TA6 form? 
For the OP: when the neighbours said it had previously flooded twice, did they mean their was damage to the house and significant water ingress? Or just that street had flooded and some houses had been damaged? When were the flood defences installed? Obviously the best time to install flood defences is before a house floods, to ensure it never does. While I'm sure it doesn't often go that way in practice, it's not impossible.

Section62

deano2099 said:

General question: if a house has flood defenses, and deploys them, and there's a flood but the house is fine, has the house "flooded" in the context of the question on the TA6 form? 

The Standard TA6 question is "Has any part of the property (whether buildings or surrounding garden or land) ever been flooded?" - so the answer would need to be "yes" if the garden (but not the house) had flooded.  The free text box would allow clarification that it was the garden rather than the house that had flooded.

MeteredOut

Cazzy1964 said:

Section62 said:

Cazzy1964 said:

Section62 said:

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?

No the solicitor needs to apply to the court to get them released 

And that's the point.  Court processes are governed by rules - you can't just rock up in court and ask for an order telling a solicitor to hand you confidential communications with a client.  These are The Civil Procedure Rules.  Anyone seeking to take action via the courts has to follow these rules, or else risk getting into trouble with the Court.

An application for an order for you to have access to the solicitor's correspondence would have to be made in the context of a claim.  You cannot ask for the documents so you can check them to see if you have a claim.  In my view it is unlikely that such an order would be made, but if it did happen then it is only likely as part of something like a pre-trial directions hearing if it could be demonstrated that the documents were something the Court needed to see to prove a claim.

The start of the legal journey - in accordance with CPR - would be your son's solicitor writing to the vendor setting out his view on what has happened and what he is claiming for.  The vendor then has the opportunity to respond.  Before progressing to court he will probably have to try alternative dispute resolution.  All of those steps have to be followed in accordance with the rules (at not inconsiderable cost) before he even gets close to the point where a Court might (but probably extremely unlikely) make an order for a solicitor to hand over communications with a client.

Given that the contents of these communications won't necessarily prove your son's vendor knew about the flooding then perhaps you'll now understand why we are urging caution.  You started the thread asking how your son could minimise his costs... one of the answers to that is not starting a legal wild goose chase based on a misunderstanding of how the law works.

The solicitor has told him to do as much work as he can before he officially starts to instruct him, If he wants to.,  to keep costs down .. the auction house has released the name of the solicitor that dealt with the purchasing of the property. He’s spoken to neighbours who confirm that it did flood 2019 and 2021 and they  spoke to her about it .. she stated on the property form it has never flooded, the previous owners confirm they explained how the flood defences work. so I guess there’s not much more he can do .. I was just asking the question how far he could go before he has to instruct a solicitor. 

OP, to me, this is your son's best chance of proving the vendor did not disclose properly - get a written/sworn statement from the neighbours that she was made aware that the property had flooded.

Emily_Joy

MeteredOut said:

Cazzy1964 said:

The solicitor has told him to do as much work as he can before he officially starts to instruct him, If he wants to.,  to keep costs down .. the auction house has released the name of the solicitor that dealt with the purchasing of the property. He’s spoken to neighbours who confirm that it did flood 2019 and 2021 and they  spoke to her about it .. she stated on the property form it has never flooded, the previous owners confirm they explained how the flood defences work. so I guess there’s not much more he can do .. I was just asking the question how far he could go before he has to instruct a solicitor. 

OP, to me, this is your son's best chance of proving the vendor did not disclose properly - get a written/sworn statement from the neighbours that she was made aware that the property had flooded.

About anyone who works in Education knows for a fact that because people were told something it doesn't mean they know it.