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

Grizebeck

She may well have lied but you will not be able to prove that I am afraid. 
My view is your on a wild goose chase 

RelievedSheff

Grizebeck said:

She may well have lied but you will not be able to prove that I am afraid. 
My view is your on a wild goose chase 

I agree with you.

When buying property it is very much a case of buyer beware and making sure that you do all of your own due diligence and not just rely on vendor information.

Cazzy1964

Searches were done and property form came back no flooding so not sure what else he could do, if communication can be found between her and her solicitor regarding the property, saying it has flooded and she has received the property form from the previous owners saying it has flooded then decided to lie on her form then I think there’s a case to answer 

Grizebeck

Cazzy1964 said:

Searches were done and property form came back no flooding so not sure what else he could do, if communication can be found between her and her solicitor regarding the property, saying it has flooded and she has received the property form from the previous owners saying it has flooded then decided to lie on her form then I think there’s a case to answer 

But your NEVER going to get that 

Section62

Cazzy1964 said:

Searches were done and property form came back no flooding so not sure what else he could do, if communication can be found between her and her solicitor regarding the property, saying it has flooded and she has received the property form from the previous owners saying it has flooded then decided to lie on her form then I think there’s a case to answer 

That isn't how things work though.  There is no obligation on people to read information given to them by their solicitor, or in the property information pack, your son cannot prove that she knew about the flooding just because the information is in a document she posessed.

The question really comes down to whether she was negligent in ticking 'No' to the flooding question.  Being negligent is not the same thing as telling a lie.

It would be valid for her to have checked the same official sources your son's solicitor (should have) used to check whether the property had flooded, and if they said 'No flooding' then it would be valid for her to tick the 'No' box unless she knew that the property had flooded.  Your son's problem is proving what she knew, which is very difficult to do. Otherwise he has to demonstrate she was negligent in not double checking other documents she may have had... the problem with that is he would be asking a court to expect a greater level of diligence in making checks than he himself apparently felt necessary when it came to checking things like why the property had flood protection installed.  That could be a tough thing to achieve.

Cazzy1964

Grizebeck said:

Cazzy1964 said:

Searches were done and property form came back no flooding so not sure what else he could do, if communication can be found between her and her solicitor regarding the property, saying it has flooded and she has received the property form from the previous owners saying it has flooded then decided to lie on her form then I think there’s a case to answer 

But your NEVER going to get that 

Yes you can, we’ve spoken to a solicitor and it will cost £1500 .. solicitors legally have to keep everything for 6 years 

silvercar

Cazzy1964 said:

Grizebeck said:

Cazzy1964 said:

Searches were done and property form came back no flooding so not sure what else he could do, if communication can be found between her and her solicitor regarding the property, saying it has flooded and she has received the property form from the previous owners saying it has flooded then decided to lie on her form then I think there’s a case to answer 

But your NEVER going to get that 

Yes you can, we’ve spoken to a solicitor and it will cost £1500 .. solicitors legally have to keep everything for 6 years 

But does a solicitor that was not involved in the sale to your son have to produce the documentation? This was the vendor's solicitor on purchase, which may even be different to the one she used on sale.

I suspect, if it ever got to court, the vendor will say it never flooded when she lived in the property (true) and she can't recall documents from her purchase. 

Cazzy1964

silvercar said:

Cazzy1964 said:

Grizebeck said:

Cazzy1964 said:

Searches were done and property form came back no flooding so not sure what else he could do, if communication can be found between her and her solicitor regarding the property, saying it has flooded and she has received the property form from the previous owners saying it has flooded then decided to lie on her form then I think there’s a case to answer 

But your NEVER going to get that 

Yes you can, we’ve spoken to a solicitor and it will cost £1500 .. solicitors legally have to keep everything for 6 years 

But does a solicitor that was not involved in the sale to your son have to produce the documentation? This was the vendor's solicitor on purchase, which may even be different to the one she used on sale.

I suspect, if it ever got to court, the vendor will say it never flooded when she lived in the property (true) and she can't recall documents from her purchase. 

silvercar said:

Cazzy1964 said:

Grizebeck said:

Cazzy1964 said:

Searches were done and property form came back no flooding so not sure what else he could do, if communication can be found between her and her solicitor regarding the property, saying it has flooded and she has received the property form from the previous owners saying it has flooded then decided to lie on her form then I think there’s a case to answer 

But your NEVER going to get that 

Yes you can, we’ve spoken to a solicitor and it will cost £1500 .. solicitors legally have to keep everything for 6 years 

But does a solicitor that was not involved in the sale to your son have to produce the documentation? This was the vendor's solicitor on purchase, which may even be different to the one she used on sale.

I suspect, if it ever got to court, the vendor will say it never flooded when she lived in the property (true) and she can't recall documents from her purchase. 

I’m guessing any solicitor that has dealt with the property has an obligation to keep these records for the 6 years and if served with a request would have to Co operate 

Section62

Cazzy1964 said:

Grizebeck said:

Cazzy1964 said:

Searches were done and property form came back no flooding so not sure what else he could do, if communication can be found between her and her solicitor regarding the property, saying it has flooded and she has received the property form from the previous owners saying it has flooded then decided to lie on her form then I think there’s a case to answer 

But your NEVER going to get that 

Yes you can, we’ve spoken to a solicitor and it will cost £1500 .. solicitors legally have to keep everything for 6 years 

Communications between a solicitor and their client are subject to legal professional privilege.  They keep documents, but that doesn't mean your son has a right to see them.

Unless the vendor and their solicitor willingly handed the communications over then your son would need to apply for a court order to obtain a copy.  I would agree with Grizebeck that the chances of being sucessful in that application are 'never'.  Effectively your son would be asking a court to give them access to professionally privileged documents on the off-chance there might be something incriminating in them.  In common parlance, a 'fishing expedition'.  It would be quite exceptional for a court to agree to that in a civil dispute of this nature.

I fear this solicitor may take the £1500 fee only to then tell your son this isn't really possible after all.

Gavin83

Cazzy1964 said:

Searches were done and property form came back no flooding so not sure what else he could do, if communication can be found between her and her solicitor regarding the property, saying it has flooded and she has received the property form from the previous owners saying it has flooded then decided to lie on her form then I think there’s a case to answer 

You aren't entitled to communications between her and her solicitor regarding a previous sale. The solicitor will hide behind the data protection act. You are entitled to communication involving yourself and also information from some organisations that are publicly responsible. This is neither.

Unfortunately I have to agree with some of the others, I'm not sure you have a particularly strong case. To chase this through court will potentially be very expensive for the losing side and I think your son would need to think very carefully before pursuing this. Someone posted an article earlier about a court case that had £100k of costs. That could be money coming out of your sons pocket. A lot of solicitors will happily take on the case either way, they'll get paid regardless of the outcome.

She probably did lie. The problem you've got is proving it. I really don't think the TA6 form from the previous sale is the golden ticket you think it is. She could easily just say she didn't read it, I expect a surprising amount of people don't bother. If you could demonstrate the property flooded during their ownership that would be great evidence but you've stated this never happened. I don't even think the previous owners agreeing to come to court would be sufficient, she could easily just say she doesn't remember such a conversation. This is even ignoring how weird it is for the previous owners to be getting involved. In your sons position I'd be worrying they were some sort of scammers.

I would normally say it's worth a few letters to see if they cave but given that I'll assume you'd be chasing them for a lot of money they'll almost certainly take it to it's conclusion. Unless you can find some actual solid evidence (which is likely extremely difficult in this case) then I think you'll need to just walk away from this. I appreciate your son is in a challenging position at the moment, with the best case scenario of being out of pocket by a lot of money but that doesn't make the case any more valid.