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

TheJP

PinkCristal said:

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 .... 

This all sounds like hearsay! I dont see how you can claim a penny based on what you are saying, you had surveys done, bought the house and now have issues. Welcome to home ownership.

PinkCristal

TheJP said:

My first question is, did you have any surveys carried out prior to buying the property?

Yes we had a survey, but our surveyor missed the damp. He admitted he'd missed it. It was behind the garden room door and unless you walked into the room and closed the door, you couldn't see it. The surveyor didn't spot it and when we saw it ourselves we called him and he returned to our property to have a look. He said he hadn't seen that and said he would go away and think what should be done. But ultimately he just washed his hands of it.

ThisIsWeird

PinkCristal said:

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.

Hi PC.

I'd recommend choosing your battles carefully. The biggest issue here would appear to be the flooding, and based on what you have told us, you appear to have a solid case, along with a perfect witness. So, good luck to you with this.

The fence is likely to be a different matter entirely, as the situation with these physical boundaries is that there is often no legal requirement to have one. If the fence in question is your neighbour's - ie, just on their side of the boundary line, and with 'responsibility' for it stated in their - and your - deeds, then all the neighbour usually 'needs' to do is to plant a few posts and string a wire between them. If you have a dog that needs to be kept secure in your garden, then I'm afraid that's your responsibility only. The neighbour would have liability if they, for example, took down the fence without warning, and knowing it could allow your dog to escape, but that is not what's happened; this fence was old, and fell down. In which case, you'd now need to secure your boundary instead, to keep in your dawg, and that is what you did. No claim there.

The sharp kerb stones do sound as tho' they could be actionable, if they restrict the width of the shared drive, or cause unreasonable impediment. In which case, your action would be against the neighbour. However, if you can evidence that the neighbour deliberately and intentionally installed these stones in order to snub your vendor, then that would clearly be a 'dispute', or a matter likely to lead to such, both of which your vendor should have made you aware of. So, yes, another goodie to tackle the vendor on. Not quite sure for what penalty, tho' - I guess for the legal costs of pursuing the case against your neighbour?

Read through your LegPro docs carefully; I've seen that some policies allow you to choose a specialist litigator if needed, if their own in-house solicitors don't have enough experience in the area concerned. For instance, if the fence situation is exactly as you have described, then they should have pointed out that you'd be unlikely to have a successful case there (based on what you have told us).

And this whole needing to prove the 3rd party has enough assets before they act is a weird one too, afaIk. Your LP's job is to take on 50+% 'winnable' cases, on the basis that they can then claim their costs from the other party. But recouping these costs should be part of their deal to carry out.

user1977

PinkCristal said:

TheJP said:

My first question is, did you have any surveys carried out prior to buying the property?

Yes we had a survey, but our surveyor missed the damp. He admitted he'd missed it.

So why aren't you suing him instead? Which would seem the more obvious option (especially as you know he has insurance). 

PinkCristal

user1977 said:

PinkCristal said:

TheJP said:

My first question is, did you have any surveys carried out prior to buying the property?

Yes we had a survey, but our surveyor missed the damp. He admitted he'd missed it.

So why aren't you suing him instead? Which would seem the more obvious option (especially as you know he has insurance). 

We took a case up with RICS but they found against us. 

ThisIsWeird

PinkCristal said:

user1977 said:

PinkCristal said:

TheJP said:

My first question is, did you have any surveys carried out prior to buying the property?

Yes we had a survey, but our surveyor missed the damp. He admitted he'd missed it.

So why aren't you suing him instead? Which would seem the more obvious option (especially as you know he has insurance). 

We took a case up with RICS but they found against us. 

The surveyor can only comment on what is observable at the time, and I guess there were no indications of these 'historic' floods?
Is that why RICS found in their favour?

PinkCristal

ThisIsWeird said:

PinkCristal said:

user1977 said:

PinkCristal said:

TheJP said:

My first question is, did you have any surveys carried out prior to buying the property?

Yes we had a survey, but our surveyor missed the damp. He admitted he'd missed it.

So why aren't you suing him instead? Which would seem the more obvious option (especially as you know he has insurance). 

We took a case up with RICS but they found against us. 

The surveyor can only comment on what is observable at the time, and I guess there were no indications of these 'historic' floods?
Is that why RICS found in their favour?

The damp and the rust coloured staining from the metal angle beading were visible on the wall in the corner behind the garden room door. The garden room is part of our property, it's not a separate outbuilding. When the surveyor attended, the whole of our property was empty, and we believe he looked in/went into the room but didn't look at the wall in the corner right behind the door. This is a retaining wall, and backs onto our neighbour's garden which is at a higher level than our property. When the surveyor returned after we'd flagged the problem with him, he looked at the marks on the wall and said he'd missed that, and said he needed to go away and think what could be done. We asked him if it was covered on his insurance and he said the excess would be more than the work needed to put it right. However, he then washed his hands of the problem. It's our word against his that he said he'd missed it. Another thing he missed is that the timber in the door frame in that corner had been partly cut out and replaced, and then painted. We believe this is because the timber had rotted. That's very visible but he didn't see that either! 

PinkCristal

Exodi 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.

What is the proof you have that the seller lied about there ever being a flood in or around the property?

For the record I totally sympathise with you, I think it is super scummy when sellers paint over damp just before viewings, or cover damage with furnishings, or 'forget' to the mention the boiler is on the way out and the toilet leaks when flushed.

But in part, that is what viewings and surveys are for. I think it's also noteworthy that your complaint is not about the main property but an outbuilding. Would it still be misrepresentation if it was a doghouse they had in the garden that had signs of damp? Is there a distinction?
 I agree that    
Also if your implication is correct, and the garden room had a serious damp issue like you describe before you moved in, then why did your survey not pick this up?

Also I'm not too familiar on what a garden room is, but am I correct in thinking it's effectively a a summer house/wood cabin/large fancy shed sort of thing constructed of wood? Do you know how the water is getting in?

Why did you leave it 3 years?

Hi there, thanks for your message. The proof we have that the seller lied about flooding is that somebody who used to rent the property from the seller told us she cut her 12 month tenancy agreement short because the room kept flooding whenever there was heavy rain. The landlady (the seller) refused to sort the problem, and the tenant's husband tried to rectify it by digging drainage, but that didn't work. The tenant has written a statement about the problems she experienced and also sent us photos. She has offered to appear in court as a witness.  The garden room is not an outbuilding, it is part of our house and leads onto our office. We don't know where the water comes from. It's not through the ceiling. When the flood happened it just appeared over the whole tiled floor and was deep enough for us to paddle in. I agree that our survey should have picked the problem up but our surveyor was negligent. Damp and the rust coloured staining from the metal angle beading were visible on the wall in the corner behind the garden room door. When the surveyor attended, the whole of our property was empty, and we believe he looked in/went into the room but didn't look at the wall in the corner right behind the door. This is a retaining wall, and backs onto our neighbour's garden which is at a higher level than our property. When the surveyor returned after we'd flagged the problem with him, he looked at the marks on the wall and said he'd missed that, and said he needed to go away and think what could be done. We asked him if it was covered on his insurance and he said the excess would be more than the work needed to put it right. However, he then washed his hands of the problem. It's our word against his that he said he'd missed it. Another thing he missed is that the timber in the door frame in that corner had been partly cut out and replaced, and then painted. This is because the timber had rotted. That's very visible but he didn't see that either!  Regarding waiting for 3 years - the time between raising our insurance claim to the completion of the building works was 7 months. Two months later the water staining started to reappear. We then spent months battling with our insurance company, who gave us some financial compensation. A damp specialist attended saying that tanking was needed. We lodged a claim with RICS against the surveyor. And we've been waiting for the property the seller now owns to be registered on Land Registry, as our solicitor cannot act for us unless there's proof the seller has assets.  

silvercar

PinkCristal said:

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?

The solicitor acting for the leaseholder is responsible for registering the leaseholder with Land Registry. 

I know that if the leaseholder themselves were impacted by the delay in registration, they could request Land Registry expedite the registration. Whether someone who wants to prove that the leaseholder has bought the lease, in order to put a charging order on the property, can request it be expedited I don't know. Maybe you could, otherwise it is one of those cases where the backlog at the Land Registry is impacting the legal process. @Land_Registry could comment?

Land_Registry

silvercar said:

PinkCristal said:

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?

The solicitor acting for the leaseholder is responsible for registering the leaseholder with Land Registry. 

I know that if the leaseholder themselves were impacted by the delay in registration, they could request Land Registry expedite the registration. Whether someone who wants to prove that the leaseholder has bought the lease, in order to put a charging order on the property, can request it be expedited I don't know. Maybe you could, otherwise it is one of those cases where the backlog at the Land Registry is impacting the legal process. @Land_Registry could comment?

Whilst anyone can request expedition this wouldn't be a case for approving such a request. Obtaining a charging order is a quite separate process and not dependent on the owner being registered so there isn't the 'legal impact' suggested.
And at this stage of course the OP does not know if the suggested owner is the purchaser/legal owner so I would recommend completing a search to confirm as appropriate - happy to take a look if they DM the relevant information to enable such a check to be made to aid their discussion