Who has not done their job properly, my conveyancer, purchasers solicitor or the Local Authority?

GTG

I sold a flat (exchanged contracts) in March 2022 as part of the work involved in the administration of an estate. I completed the administration of the estate in September 2022. Last week I received an email from the proprietor of the conveyancing firm I used for the sale of the flat. It was to tell me that the gentleman that I sold it to was selling it on and his purchaser's solicitor had done a local land search which revealed that there is a "Notification of approval of disabled facilities grant" which was registered in November 2014 and some of the grant would be repayable if the property is sold within 10 years. The deceased's paper work keeping was not his strong point so I acquired an incomplete set of records and I was not aware of the grant when doing the administration. The current owner/seller has asked my conveyancer to get it sorted and the conveyancer has asked for my comments. I paid the local authority who are the freeholders and manage the building for a leasehold pack which was sent to the conveyancer during the conveyancing process. 

Anyone got any advice as to the best way to proceed with this please?      

theartfullodger

Could you think of anyone else who might have been less than 100%…?

lincroft1710

Sounds like the conveyancer who acted for your purchaser could be at fault for not ensuring their client's purchase was free from any encumbrance, unless you answered "no" to such a question on the TA 6

(Edited to correct form type)

GTG

theartfullodger said:

Could you think of anyone else who might have been less than 100%…?

What did I not do?

GTG

lincroft1710 said:

Sounds like the conveyancer who acted for your purchaser could be at fault for not ensuring their client's purchase was free from any encumbrance, unless you answered "no" to such a question on the TA 10

I think you must mean another form as TA10 is for fixtures and contents?

Tiglet2

When you were selling the property, was there a charge on the registered title regarding the disabilities grant?  Some local authorities will place a charge against the property, that will have to be re-paid, if the disabled person moves out and sells the adapted property a few years after the works have been completed. 

It is very much buyer beware.  When a buyer and their solicitor are purchasing a property, it is their responsibility to make enquiries and do any due diligence necessary to ensure that they are buying a good and marketable title.   It would fall upon them to raise enquiries of your solicitor/you/the council in order that the charge could be removed, before the new owner could be registered.

As you were selling as Administrator, you wouldn't be expected to know anything much about the property.  Presumably the property was being sold with "limited title"?

First of all, I would check the paperwork when you sold to see if the charge is noted on the title.  If it is, then I would pass it back to the purchaser's solicitor via your solicitor to say that you were not aware of the charge as you were selling as Administrator with limited title guarantee and that they should have dealt with this during the purchase.

The monies owed to the council will need to be repaid though.


 

user1977

Well, for starters are you now satisfied that there was such a grant provided under those conditions? If so then I expect the estate is liable.

Yes, it would have been helpful to everyone if the buyer (via their solicitors) had discovered the issue, but I don't think anybody owes you a duty to have done so. This is stuff deemed to be within your knowledge.

p00hsticks

GTG said:

lincroft1710 said:

Sounds like the conveyancer who acted for your purchaser could be at fault for not ensuring their client's purchase was free from any encumbrance, unless you answered "no" to such a question on the TA 10

I think you must mean another form as TA10 is for fixtures and contents?

TA06 - question 10.1 asks 'Does the seller have to pay any charges relating to the property (excluding any payments such as council tax, utility charges, etc.), for example payments to a management company? If Yes, please give details' 

lincroft1710

GTG said:

lincroft1710 said:

Sounds like the conveyancer who acted for your purchaser could be at fault for not ensuring their client's purchase was free from any encumbrance, unless you answered "no" to such a question on the TA 10

I think you must mean another form as TA10 is for fixtures and contents?

Hopefully now corrected

user1977

p00hsticks said:

GTG said:

lincroft1710 said:

Sounds like the conveyancer who acted for your purchaser could be at fault for not ensuring their client's purchase was free from any encumbrance, unless you answered "no" to such a question on the TA 10

I think you must mean another form as TA10 is for fixtures and contents?

TA06 - question 10.1 asks 'Does the seller have to pay any charges relating to the property (excluding any payments such as council tax, utility charges, etc.), for example payments to a management company? If Yes, please give details' 

I would interpret that as meaning only ongoing payments, not payments like this which merely happen to be triggered by a sale.

I think the question about repayment of charges is the more relevant one.

lincroft1710

user1977 said:

Well, for starters are you now satisfied that there was such a grant provided under those conditions? If so then I expect the estate is liable.

Yes, it would have been helpful to everyone if the buyer (via their solicitors) had discovered the issue, but I don't think anybody owes you a duty to have done so. This is stuff deemed to be within your knowledge.

I rarely disagree with what you post, but if the OP had found no paperwork nor any charge placed on the property and answered all questions asked to the best of their ability, would they still be liable. I know there are differences between English and Scottish property law, but does not caveat emptor prevail.