Mis-sold on a house

lincroft1710

You can have a rat infestation, call pest control who sort the problem, then a year or two later the rats are back unless you have found how they were accessing the property. In my case it was via the sewers

Gavin83

ThisIsWeird said:

There is a section in the SIP dealing directly with neighbourly disputes, tho', and it is a legal requirement to disclose.

And, there is a legal requirement to disclose, beyond the SIP, anything that could 'materially affect the value of the property'. Eg, if a previous occupant had been killed in the house by rats. Most folk would find that off-putting.

Have you got a link to this legal case as this isn't my understanding of the requirements. As far as I'm aware there's no requirement for the vendor to disclose anything, nor a legal requirement for them to disclose a neighbour dispute. They can't lie so answering 'no' to such a question could be problematic for the vendor but they can omit to answer. I can't think of any other circumstances where an individual (not a business) is legally obliged to disclose something outside of court.

I've always found the concept of having to disclose anything which could affect the value to be extremely fluffy anyway. How do you define what affects the value, especially as a non expert? One persons major issue is another persons complete non issue. If something bothers you that much you should ask. Your example is ideal for this. I wouldn't even begin to consider someone dying in the property as something to disclose where as you potentially consider it important. Who's right? My view is it's an impossible question to answer.

In terms of the OP I don't understand how rats could cause so much damage to a house you need a whole house renovation, including a new roof that lasts 3 years. Also anything that extreme should have been obvious from your viewing, let alone during a survey. I feel like there's a lot of information missing and the OP hasn't been back so until some questions are answered there's little more to say.

ThisIsWeird

Gavin83 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

There is a section in the SIP dealing directly with neighbourly disputes, tho', and it is a legal requirement to disclose.

And, there is a legal requirement to disclose, beyond the SIP, anything that could 'materially affect the value of the property'. Eg, if a previous occupant had been killed in the house by rats. Most folk would find that off-putting.

Have you got a link to this legal case as this isn't my understanding of the requirements. As far as I'm aware there's no requirement for the vendor to disclose anything, nor a legal requirement for them to disclose a neighbour dispute. They can't lie so answering 'no' to such a question could be problematic for the vendor but they can omit to answer. I can't think of any other circumstances where an individual (not a business) is legally obliged to disclose something outside of court.

I've always found the concept of having to disclose anything which could affect the value to be extremely fluffy anyway. How do you define what affects the value, especially as a non expert? One persons major issue is another persons complete non issue. If something bothers you that much you should ask. Your example is ideal for this. I wouldn't even begin to consider someone dying in the property as something to disclose where as you potentially consider it important. Who's right? My view is it's an impossible question to answer.

In terms of the OP I don't understand how rats could cause so much damage to a house you need a whole house renovation, including a new roof that lasts 3 years. Also anything that extreme should have been obvious from your viewing, let alone during a survey. I feel like there's a lot of information missing and the OP hasn't been back so until some questions are answered there's little more to say.

I'll try and find the article, Gavin. 
Re the 'dispute' Q, yes, of course you can just refuse to answer, but that should, in itself, be cause for concern. I would certainly chase up a blank space in that Q.
And if they actually fib, then they could be in trouble.
The 'materially affect' issue was tested in court. The article I read - in the Telegraph, forgive me - was surrounding whether a seller should declare a murder in their home. They admitted that they'd been told about this when they bought it, and acknowledged they'd got a bargain as a result - many others were put off by this. They now wondered if they needed to declare it.
The answer was 'yes', undoubtedly morally, but also legally, following a test case regarding this 'material' affect on the value.

ThisIsWeird

Found it: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buying-selling/sellling-house-disclose-grisly-history-murder-buyers/

Also looking as tho' greater responsibility is going to fall on sellers to disclose other issues, and be upfront. Sounds fair enough to me. 'Buyer beware' is clearly not fair. But, just how much you need to say?!


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buying-selling/home-sellers-disclose-surprises-stop-deals-falling-through/

NameUnavailable

The OP is thinking of going after the previous vendors 4 years after buying the house (which they've now sold on) ???

Seriously?

Emmia

ThisIsWeird said:

Found it: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buying-selling/sellling-house-disclose-grisly-history-murder-buyers/

Also looking as tho' greater responsibility is going to fall on sellers to disclose other issues, and be upfront. Sounds fair enough to me. 'Buyer beware' is clearly not fair. But, just how much you need to say?!


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buying-selling/home-sellers-disclose-surprises-stop-deals-falling-through/

That article is about the fact the person asking got a discount due to the history,  and whether they should be "honest" and  again sell at a discount.

I think a grisly murder (which is a permanent event, associated with a property, so honesty is the best policy) is completely different from a rat infestation which is potentially temporary, could happen at anytime, in any property and can be dealt with by pest control.  Or in the case of the OP a 3 year top to bottom renovation costing (I'd expect) many thousands of pounds - which they haven't benefitted from as they've sold the property.

ThisIsWeird

Emmia said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Found it: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buying-selling/sellling-house-disclose-grisly-history-murder-buyers/

Also looking as tho' greater responsibility is going to fall on sellers to disclose other issues, and be upfront. Sounds fair enough to me. 'Buyer beware' is clearly not fair. But, just how much you need to say?!


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buying-selling/home-sellers-disclose-surprises-stop-deals-falling-through/

That article is about the fact the person asking got a discount due to the history,  and whether they should be "honest" and  again sell at a discount.

I think a grisly murder (which is a permanent event, associated with a property, so honesty is the best policy) is completely different from a rat infestation which is potentially temporary, could happen at anytime, in any property and can be dealt with by pest control.  Or in the case of the OP a 3 year top to bottom renovation costing (I'd expect) many thousands of pounds - which they haven't benefitted from as they've sold the property.

Of course! I'm not at all suggesting there is any comparison.
Completely different issues. I was just answering Q's, and pointing out interesting info that I'd only recently become aware of. 
Personally, I don't think the OP has the remotest chance of success. Any rightly not.
Unless there is more to the story - which I doubt. 

Gavin83

ThisIsWeird said:

Found it: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buying-selling/sellling-house-disclose-grisly-history-murder-buyers/

Also looking as tho' greater responsibility is going to fall on sellers to disclose other issues, and be upfront. Sounds fair enough to me. 'Buyer beware' is clearly not fair. But, just how much you need to say?!


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buying-selling/home-sellers-disclose-surprises-stop-deals-falling-through/

Thanks for providing a link to the article. It makes for interesting reading. While it does backup what you said I'm not sure I agree with their findings. They mention Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations in the article but I can't find anywhere that states it applies to personal vendors. It certainly applies to businesses involved in the process (EAs, solicitors, etc) but I wouldn't dispute that. It will also apply to new build companies. I'm just not sure it applies to a regular vendor. It even mentions "caveat emptor" in the article but then goes on to effectively ignore this.

Of course this means the EA is obliged to inform a potential buyer of issues with the house but I'm not sure the vendor is obliged to inform the EA of issues in the first place. The EA won't be blamed for not informing a buyer of an issue they weren't aware of. They also mention the "Flight v Booth" case in the article but this is a business to business transaction for a commercial premises so I'm not really sure it's relevant. Businesses are often held to a certain standard that individuals are not. This applies to pretty much every area where a sale takes place, so car traders are expected to be more open than a private seller, a retail business more open than someone selling on eBay, etc....

The only rule that really applies to private sellers (that I'm aware of) is they can't misrepresent what they're selling. So I'll stand by what I said originally, in the sense they can't outright lie but I'm still not sure they're required to disclose anything up front.  

I can't view the second article as it's hidden behind a paywall. Weird that it let me view the first!

Also I appreciate this chat is taking this thread off topic a bit but it's an interesting relevant debate and until the OP comes back there's little more to say anyway.

robatwork

If the seller lied on their TA6 about not having a dispute with the neighbour, and you have documentary proof that they did, then I think yes, you have a right to sue them on that basis. It's also arguably not too late to sue them either 4 years on.

SHOULD you sue them? Absolutely not. Chances of success are miniscule.

pinkshoes

RobMonkman said:

Hi, new here, but I've ran out of ideas as to what to do next!

It's a pretty long story, but we were sold a house 4 years ago whereby the seller didn't disclose any information about an infestation in the property (rats) and an ongoing dispute with the neighbours about it.

Having a young family, it meant having to move out and we ended up doing a full refurbishment on the property over a 3 year period (whilst renting) in a attempt to deal with the issues. Not every bit of work was connected, but there were thing's we had to do to deal with the problem such as replacing the roof, building works on the garage, etc.

I've written up a timeline of events, but it's been 4 years of hell, and now that we've finally sold the property, the money we sold for wasn't enough to cover all the debts we accumulated and now we've been wiped out financially.

There has also been a huge effect on our health and wellbeing, for example my partner now has nightmares about rats getting into the bedroom, and the financial pressures are causing many disagreements.

I spoke to a solicitor but was just told there's nothing that can be done, but I find it hard to accept we don't have some kind of legal rights when the seller clearly done everything in their power to cover up the issues and didn't declare anything during the sale.

Has anyone had a similar issue or are there any property mis selling experts within Martins' team?

Thanks,
Rob

Have you ever seen Man VS Bee? What you have written somewhat reminds me of one of the episodes where he chases the bee round the house and ends up trashing the house.



I cannot understand what rats have to do with replacing a roof.

If you had a bad rat infestation and had a full survey done that should have picked this up, then go back to the surveying company any claim any losses e.g. cost of rat investigation and fumigation and accommodation for the period you NEEDED to be out the house e.g. a couple of weeks. 

If you didn't have a full survey then definitely buyer beware I'm afraid.

But paying for 3 years or rental property while you renovate has nothing to do with a rat infestation.