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

MultiFuelBurner

Cazzy1964 said:

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 

Has the definition of flood been established?

If they say some rain got in is that a flood? Or is a flood so many cm high inside the property?

MeteredOut

Emily_Joy said:

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.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If the previous owner was told the house had flooded, then they were aware that the house had flooded, and they therefore misrepresented that on the form.

Now, they could claim they did not remember that conversation, and proving that might be difficult, but faced with a sworn statement that they were told that information, would they risk continuing with the pretence if it did end up in court?

snooksnj1

Cazzy1964 said:

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 

So what are you going to do if the free advice from the Union gives the same advice as the good people on this thread advising you it's an uphill battle and an expensive one so let it go? 

Cazzy1964

snooksnj1 said:

Cazzy1964 said:

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 

So what are you going to do if the free advice from the Union gives the same advice as the good people on this thread advising you it's an uphill battle and an expensive one so let it go? 

He’s already been told by one solicitor there could possibly be a case .. I wasn’t asking anyone if I should go to court .. that wasn’t my question. 

Section62

MeteredOut said:

Emily_Joy said:

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

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If the previous owner was told the house had flooded, then they were aware that the house had flooded, and they therefore misrepresented that on the form.

Now, they could claim they did not remember that conversation, and proving that might be difficult, but faced with a sworn statement that they were told that information, would they risk continuing with the pretence if it did end up in court?

For "difficult" read "virtually impossible". And you have to go a step back and prove the conversation actually took place, not just that the vendor doesn't remember it.

If the neighbour(s) kept contemporaneous notes of all the conversations they have with neighbours then that claim might be more persuasive, but a judge/magistrate may also form their own not-so-positive impression of a witness who keeps contemporaneous notes of neighbourly conversations.

This isn't Rumpole of the Bailey.  The Court will decide what will and won't be allowed in the way of evidence and be guided by the Civil Procedure Rules.  In my own experience judges/magistrates don't have much time for people making he said/she said arguments in civil cases, they want to deal with facts.

The facts here are the official sources - and the OP's son's own survey - all indicated no evidence of flooding.  That doesn't mean flooding has never happened, but it presents the OP's son with a virtual mountain of trying to prove the vendor knew that it had on the basis of a conversation that may or may not have happened some years ago.

Section62

Cazzy1964 said:

snooksnj1 said:

Cazzy1964 said:

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 

So what are you going to do if the free advice from the Union gives the same advice as the good people on this thread advising you it's an uphill battle and an expensive one so let it go? 

He’s already been told by one solicitor there could possibly be a case .. I wasn’t asking anyone if I should go to court .. that wasn’t my question. 

Way back in the thread you said -  "It says on the form, has the property ever been flooded.it doesn’t really matter who they are .. if they can prove she is lying he will take her to court."

This is why people think you/your son has already made the decision to go to court, and why we are advising you of the risks involved in doing so.

You then said - "If he can get hold of the property form and instruct a solicitor to apply for access to the documents and email connected to the sale from their solicitor then that’s what he will do."

Again, "apply for access to the documents..." means going to court. This time for something which he is incredibly unlikely to achieve.

If your son has no intention of going to court unless he has professional legal advice that it is appropriate and he stands a good chance of winning, then that is a much happier place to be in.

Meantime his property is still vulnerable to flooding and he doesn't know how the flood defences work and/or why they failed to prevent this flooding incident.  And there's still a lot of rain to come this Winter.....

Grizebeck

Looks like a big storm hitting the south next week to........

Cazzy1964

Section62 said:

Cazzy1964 said: he

snooksnj1 said:

Cazzy1964 said:

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 

So what are you going to do if the free advice from the Union gives the same advice as the good people on this thread advising you it's an uphill battle and an expensive one so let it go? 

He’s already been told by one solicitor there could possibly be a case .. I wasn’t asking anyone if I should go to court .. that wasn’t my question. 

Way back in the thread you said -  "It says on the form, has the property ever been flooded.it doesn’t really matter who they are .. if they can prove she is lying he will take her to court."

This is why people think you/your son has already made the decision to go to court, and why we are advising you of the risks involved in doing so.

You then said - "If he can get hold of the property form and instruct a solicitor to apply for access to the documents and email connected to the sale from their solicitor then that’s what he will do."

Again, "apply for access to the documents..." means going to court. This time for something which he is incredibly unlikely to achieve.

If your son has no intention of going to court unless he has professional legal advice that it is appropriate and he stands a good chance of winning, then that is a much happier place to be in.

Meantime his property is still vulnerable to flooding and he doesn't know how the flood defences work and/or why they failed to prevent this flooding incident.  And there's still a lot of rain to come this Winter.....

The flood defences didn’t fail.. the water came up though the floors .. the doors were protected by them 

silvercar

MeteredOut said:

Emily_Joy said:

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.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If the previous owner was told the house had flooded, then they were aware that the house had flooded, and they therefore misrepresented that on the form.

Now, they could claim they did not remember that conversation, and proving that might be difficult, but faced with a sworn statement that they were told that information, would they risk continuing with the pretence if it did end up in court?

Not sure that is true. People say all sort of stuff, doesn't mean it is true, they could exaggerating or making things up to stir trouble. The previous owner may have been told, but think that what they were told wasn't true as they didn't experience a flood. Or the the neighbours may be claiming they told the previous owner, but actually they hadn't. Even if they did tell the previous owner, it doesn't mean it was true.

Section62

Cazzy1964 said:

Section62 said:

The flood defences didn’t fail.. the water came up though the floors .. the doors were protected by them 

The flood defences failed because the water came up through the floor.

Flood defence requires a holistic aproach.  There's no point having something on the doors if the drains don't have non-return valves and if the floor has a ventillation system with an opening below the design flood level.

The flood defences failed because water got into the house through the floors - either because something was missing or damaged, or because that route was never protected in the first place.