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

lincroft1710

Cazzy1964 said:

lincroft1710 said:

silvercar said:

lincroft1710 said:

Cazzy1964 said:

He’s already got the mortgage so I can’t see that being a problem 

He should check his mortgage terms and conditions very carefully. If the lender finds out the property is worth less than the amount of the loan then they may have the right to call in the mortgage.

This isn't true. Lenders don't do mid term valuations. 

I agree that lenders would not normally revisit a loan, but if it came to their attention that the value of the property had significantly fallen due to circumstances other than normal house price movement, they may want to reconsider.


The other point to consider is that the OP's son may now be in negative equity. 

They would only know that if he sold it surely .. 

If your son started legal action and details of the case were in the public domain, there is a possibility (slim, I agree) the lender may find out, From reading many threads on this forum, some lenders can be unpredictable.


Do remember that "interesting" cases can quickly become public knowledge especially if the press are involved. If people didn't know about the property flooding, they will if the case makes the papers.

user1977

lincroft1710 said:

silvercar said:

lincroft1710 said:

Cazzy1964 said:

He’s already got the mortgage so I can’t see that being a problem 

He should check his mortgage terms and conditions very carefully. If the lender finds out the property is worth less than the amount of the loan then they may have the right to call in the mortgage.

This isn't true. Lenders don't do mid term valuations. 

I agree that lenders would not normally revisit a loan, but if it came to their attention that the value of the property had significantly fallen due to circumstances other than normal house price movement, they may want to reconsider.

The other point to consider is that the OP's son may now be in negative equity. 

But there wouldn't be much point in the lender doing anything about it - the borrower isn't likely to be able to easily remortgage, and I doubt the lender would relish taking possession. Better for them just to sit back and collect the repayments.

loubel

lincroft1710 said:

The other point to consider is that the OP's son may now be in negative equity. 

This is presumably why they are investigating whether they can sue the seller. If the seller knew the property has previously flooded and lied about it in order to sell the property (and this information could not be obtained elsewhere e.g. standard searches, enquiries, survey) then there does appear to have been a misrepresentation. Properties with a history of flooding are harder to sell, harder to insure and generally worth less because people don't want their belongings ruined. Presumably why the property was sold at auction after the previous flooding! Obtaining sufficient evidence to win in court is not going to be easy or cheap though.

silvercar

user1977 said:

lincroft1710 said:

silvercar said:

lincroft1710 said:

Cazzy1964 said:

He’s already got the mortgage so I can’t see that being a problem 

He should check his mortgage terms and conditions very carefully. If the lender finds out the property is worth less than the amount of the loan then they may have the right to call in the mortgage.

This isn't true. Lenders don't do mid term valuations. 

I agree that lenders would not normally revisit a loan, but if it came to their attention that the value of the property had significantly fallen due to circumstances other than normal house price movement, they may want to reconsider.

The other point to consider is that the OP's son may now be in negative equity. 

But there wouldn't be much point in the lender doing anything about it - the borrower isn't likely to be able to easily remortgage, and I doubt the lender would relish taking possession. Better for them just to sit back and collect the repayments.

I agree, the current lender isn't the issue here.

What is the issue is whether the vendor lied and how much it was reasonable for the buyer to rely on that lie. Surveyors should point out risks; environmental searches show flood risks; should the buyer have looked into this. Is it the solicitor's responsibility to say the property is on a flood plane you need an environmental search.

I've just found this link: https://check-long-term-flood-risk.service.gov.uk/risk#

You can find the flood risk with a few clicks. 

Emily_Joy

Properties in our area with history of flooding sold to cash buyers only and unmortgageable. I am very surprised it was possible to get mortgage at first place.

loubel

EmilyEmily_Joy said:

Properties in our area with history of flooding sold to cash buyers only and unmortgageable. I am very surprised it was possible to get mortgage at first place.

The history of flooding was not known at the time of purchase and apparently the property was not identified as a flood risk by searches, survey or insurers. 

Emily_Joy

loubel said:

Properties in our area with history of flooding sold to cash buyers only and unmortgageable. I am very surprised it was possible to get mortgage at first place. The history of flooding was not known at the time of purchase and apparently the property was not identified as a flood risk by searches, survey or insurers. 

I find it hard to believe that so recent and considerable floods went unnoticed, taken into account the neighbouring properties were affected. Surely, the owners should have made claims on their insurances?.. On the TR6 form there is also a question about insurance, what did it read? 

loubel

I am not the OP. I'm sure if the lender or buyer had realised that the property had flooded before and remained high risk they would not have proceeded. But the OP says that there were no issues insuring, no flood risk identified in the environmental search or by the surveyor. It is all very odd for a property that has now flooded 3 times in just a few years.

Cazzy1964

U Emily_Joy said:

loubel said:

Properties in our area with history of flooding sold to cash buyers only and unmortgageable. I am very surprised it was possible to get mortgage at first place. The history of flooding was not known at the time of purchase and apparently the property was not identified as a flood risk by searches, survey or insurers. 

I find it hard to believe that so recent and considerable floods went unnoticed, taken into account the neighbouring properties were affected. Surely, the owners should have made claims on their insurances?.. On the TR6 form there is also a question about insurance, what did it read? 

It was the owners before the vendor that it flooded twice for .. but she has answered it has never flooded .. we suspect she is lying in order to get a sale 

Emily_Joy

Cazzy1964 said:

U Emily_Joy said:

loubel said:

Properties in our area with history of flooding sold to cash buyers only and unmortgageable. I am very surprised it was possible to get mortgage at first place. The history of flooding was not known at the time of purchase and apparently the property was not identified as a flood risk by searches, survey or insurers. 

I find it hard to believe that so recent and considerable floods went unnoticed, taken into account the neighbouring properties were affected. Surely, the owners should have made claims on their insurances?.. On the TR6 form there is also a question about insurance, what did it read? 

It was the owners before the vendor that it flooded twice for .. but she has answered it has never flooded .. we suspect she is lying in order to get a sale 

I got that. If you go to google and search for "flood" "street name" and "town", does anything come up?