Seller lied on house sales forms. We need to prove she has assets so we can take her to court.

Grizebeck

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fees-in-the-civil-and-family-courts-main-fees-ex50/civil-court-fees-ex50

PinkCristal

bobster2 said:

PinkCristal said:

Three months after moving into our house we noticed damp appearing in our garden room and then following torrential rain we had a flood. Our insurers paid for the damage to be fixed, but a few weeks later damp started to reappear and has got steadily worse. The room is now unusable. We've been told tanking is needed, the cost of which is considerable. We have proof that the seller lied on the paperwork when we bought the house, saying there had never been any flooding in or around the property. Additionally, we've had problems with the next door neighbour. Again, the seller lied on the sales paperwork saying there had never been any disputes. We have discovered written proof that the neighbour took our seller to court over a dispute related to the shared drive. We've been in our house for 3 years and the problems remain.

If the seller answered "no" to a question about whether there had been any disputes with neighbours about boundaries or rights of access - then it would seem this was clearly untrue. But what would your financial loss be?

On the water - much could depend on the wording of the question they answered. Often the question asks "Has any part of the property ever been flooded?" But not all water ingress may be considered to constitute "flooding".

What was the nature of the "flood" you experienced? Did surface water levels rises immediately outside? And what would be your proof that the previous owner experienced "flooding"?

I'm not saying you didn't experience "flooding" but colloquial use of the term often differs from the definitions used by insurers.

The wording on the questionnaire was "has there ever been flooding in or around the property?" We believe the water ingress we had constituted flooding because we were literally paddling in it. There was no water visibly coming through the ceiling or running down the walls, it seemed to just appear on the tiled floor. It covered the whole of the floor and came up over our feet. We think it must have risen up through the floor somehow. I don't know if the water levels rose immediately outside, as we were too busy moving furniture and possessions out of the garden room to protect them. Our proof that the flooding in that room has happened several times before comes from a tenant who previously rented our home from the lady who sold it to us. This tenant told us that the room flooded several times in the 7 months she was there, and the seller ignored her requests to sort out the problem. The tenant's young son had his bedroom in the garden room, and the tenant had to move his bedroom into another room in the house because of the flooding. The tenant's husband dug drainage to try to solve the problem but that didn't work. Eventually the tenant had to move out because she couldn't tolerate the situation and she cut short her 12 month contract. This tenant has sent us photos and a written statement, and has offered to attend court as a witness if necessary.

Regarding the disputes with our neighbour, this has impacted us financially. One example, his fence bordering our garden fell down and he refused to repair it, which meant our dog could easily escape. So we ended up paying for a new fence ourselves. There are sharp kerb stones on the narrow shared drive which have damaged our car tyres and we've paid out for replacements.  The kerb stones were installed by our neighbour to stop large vehicles (eg 4x4s) belonging to relatives of the seller easily accessing her property. There are several other similar issues which have cost us financially.

Grizebeck

Can you quantify what figure you are after and based on what 
Either take legal action yourself or move on

PinkCristal

Schwarzwald said:

PinkCristal said:

…We started legal proceedings, but our solicitor can't proceed as she cannot find evidence of the seller owning any assets from which we could receive compensation…

I doubt this is a true statement.

your ability to proceed legally are not limited by the counterparty’s financials.
if it made sense commercially, is a whole other questions. But if you tell your solicitor proceed, they shall proceed. Unless for example they are paid by insurers and they wont proceed without good commercial prospects to recover.

Our solicitors are paid by our insurers and so they won't proceed without a good prospect of winning

PinkCristal

Land_Registry said:

Two likely reasons why she may not be registered as a leaseholder owner. The first is because she didn't buy it but has a short let/rental agreement. The second is that it has as yet not been registered - we have a backlog of work re new builds/developments and some purchases may as yet not be registered. 
If you buy in a conventional way so a new lease from developer to you or a Transfer in the same way then that would be registered. You can't do that and then keep your name off the land register for example

Thank you for your advice. We know that she bought the property and is not renting it. We know this because I phoned the estate agent who was selling the flats on the development. My call was answered by a person who appeared to be inexperienced and not aware of GDPR. I asked who owned the flat and he told me she owned it, even telling me the date her purchase completed. She lives at Flat 2. Flat 1 and Flat 3 are both registered with Land Registry, as are several others on the block. It's good to know that it should be registered at some point, and then we can pursue our case. Who is responsible for requesting the registration? Is it the developer, or the leaseholder?

Grizebeck

You are going down a rabbit hole

PinkCristal

saajan_12 said:

PinkCristal said:

user1977 said:

Why can't your own solicitor give you further advice? Surely this is their daily bread and butter? 

Our solicitor is through our house insurance as we paid a legal expenses premium. She said she's happy to take on our case if we can prove the vendor has assets but under the agreement with our insurer she cannot progress if there is no likelihood of us receiving compensation from the vendor. Her team have tried to track the vendor's assets without success.  Our solicitor said we could try the small claims court but with the £10,000 limit we don't think that is the best option. She also said if the seller's assets become known and we've already gone to the small claims court, we wouldn't then be able to proceed with any further action.

How much are you seeking and how much would the solicitor's cut be (presumably a % of the win)?

Through small claims yes there's a lower limit, but also lower risk if you lose (no court costs for the other side) and if you win then you keep all of it. Through multi track or a higher limit civil court (which will be what this solicitor is planning), you risk having to pay the other side's legal costs if you lose, or pay a % of the win to your solicitor if you win. You're also assuming you / your solicitor can prove £x0,000s of damage which will be scrutinised more for higher amounts. While you may have a strong case, it only needs to fall down in one area and the other side will also be legally represented to find any holes.

We've had quotes ranging from £6k to £15k for building work to rectify the flooding and damp. We're waiting for an independent damp specialist to confirm what is needed before we look further into these and other quotes. I am unsure what percentage the solicitor would take.

PinkCristal

Grizebeck said:

Can you quantify what figure you are after and based on what 
Either take legal action yourself or move on

We've had quotes ranging from £6k to £15k for building work to rectify the flooding and damp. We're waiting for an independent damp specialist to confirm what is needed before we look further into these and other quotes. We would be seeking the amount it will cost to get the building work done to stop water ingress.

PinkCristal

user1977 said:

PinkCristal said:

user1977 said:

Why can't your own solicitor give you further advice? Surely this is their daily bread and butter? 

Her team have tried to track the vendor's assets without success. 

What have they done so far?

I don't know exactly, but they have a team who looks into these things. It's a big firm of solicitors, Irwin Mitchell

PinkCristal

Olinda99 said:

you need to be careful as flooding is not necessarily the same as torrential rain causing puddles etc even if large puddles.

in fact if the torrential rain has caused the room to become uninhabitable and unusable then the previous owner could say well clearly I didn't have flooding because the room was usable with no damp when I sold it

We believe the water ingress we had constituted flooding because we were literally paddling in it. There was no water visibly coming through the ceiling or running down the walls, it seemed to just appear on the tiled floor. It covered the whole of the floor and came up over our feet. We think it must have risen up through the floor somehow. Our proof that the flooding in that room has happened several times before comes from a tenant who previously rented our home from the lady who sold it to us. This tenant told us that the room flooded several times in the 7 months she was there, and the seller ignored her requests to sort out the problem. The tenant's young son had his bedroom in the garden room, and the tenant had to move his bedroom into another room in the house because of the flooding. The tenant's husband dug drainage to try to solve the problem but that didn't work. Eventually the tenant had to move out because she couldn't tolerate the situation and she cut short her 12 month contract. This tenant has sent us photos and a written statement, and has offered to attend court as a witness if necessary.

Yes I guess the owner could say she didn't have flooding because there was no damp when she sold it. Except there was damp, and our surveyor missed it ....