Discovered hidden council deed after buying house – any legal options?

silvercar

user1977 said:

silvercar said:

Unless the seller didn't own a vehicle and never had guests who had a car that needed to be parked on the road, I don't know how they can argue they were unaware.

I would expect guests to be treated like any other visitor for parking purposes, the residents' permits would be purely for the resident vehicles.

I'd expect the sellers to be aware but I wouldn't say it's obvious that they were deliberately misleading the OP.

As I said above, the main problem is quantifying any loss, and even if you can, figuring out whether it's worthwhile pursuing.

In my area, new homes created in areas that are given these restrictions are not allowed resident permits or visitor permits.

Grumpy_chap

UKresident3333 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

kinger101 said:

It would be difficult to prove the seller did know.  Your solicitor has failed so my initial complaint would be with them.

That might really depend on the specific person who signed the agreement with the Local Authority:

UKresident3333 said:

Hi everyone,

I’m hoping for some guidance on a situation I’ve discovered recently.

I bought my house about 2 years ago. I’ve just found out that a deed was signed between the seller and the council a few years before the sale. This deed states that no occupier or owner of the property can apply for a residents’ parking permit because the house is part of a low car housing scheme. This was a condition imposed by the council when planning permission was granted to the developers to split an existing house into two houses - one of which we purchased.

This deed was never provided to me or my solicitor during conveyancing.

In the TA6 Property Information Form (I think that’s what it’s called - the seller’s questionnaire), the seller answered “not known” to the question about whether the property is affected by any parking schemes or restrictions. Their solicitor even told ours to “rely on your own searches”.

Our solicitor later concluded that all searches were fine - though I’m not sure whether this deed was missed by them or simply not available in the searches.

My questions are:

1. Can I take legal action against the seller for withholding this information?

2. Would this amount to fraudulent misrepresentation, given the seller clearly knew about the restriction (they signed the deed themselves just a few years earlier)?

3. Is it realistically worth pursuing legally - what are the chances of success or recovering any money, and what would the costs likely be?

I’d really appreciate any advice.

Thanks in advance for any help - this has been a real shock to discover and my wife and I feel as though we've been conned. 

Was that the same seller - the same individual - from whom the OP purchased the property?
Or was that a deed signed between the developer who split the single property into two, prior the seller from whom the OP purchased acquiring the property?

However, I do think the responses on the TA6 as to "not known" about parking restrictions and "rely on your own searches" were very carefully phrased by the vendor / vendor's solicitor.  That comment is probably suggesting that the information is in the public domain.  Is that the case?  
Is the information only available by reference to the planning permission, or is it somewhere more readily accessible?

Given that two years have passed since the OP purchased the property, what loss has the OP suffered as a result?
Is there really no need for a resident's permit?
Has the OP successfully obtained resident's permits since moving in?

What was the event that brought this deed to light now?

Yes the same seller is the one who signed the deed. The seller is a 'company' (him and his wife) but that company signed the deed so yes it's the same person. Yes the information is in the public domain - I didn't check local planning portals at the time as I didn't know about this thing but since I've found it. However, my understanding is they can't lie on the TA6 either way? Also, the deed requires them to share the deed with buyers so I must have grounds for legal action there too? The loss is we can't park here during the day as there are two CPZ hours. We can't get a permit the council outright refuse and refer us back to the deed. This event was brought to light as we tried to apply for a permit and the council told us about the deed.

Well, it seems clear that the sellers were incorrect in their completion of the TA6, plus the seller's solicitor was "cautious" with the wording they used in the reply.
One might have expected that choice of wording by the seller's solicitor to alert your solicitor to something possibly amiss.  I'd forget about that for now.

The seller cannot lie on the TA6.  There may be grounds for legal action for the incorrect declaration on the TA6 and / or the failure to pass on the deed.
To establish what legal steps might be available, what remedy such action might yield and the chances of any successful outcome, you really need to revert to your conveyancing solicitor.

silvercar

If this deed is attached to the house, your solicitor should have seen and checked it and made you aware.
 

If the solicitors’ claim it isn’t their responsibility, then you need to check if the company still exists. If it no longer exists you will have no one to chase as no doubt it would have been a limited company. 

Difficult to quantify your loss, you would be looking at the value of the property without the restriction compared to what it is now, with this restriction. Saying you wouldn’t have bought it is irrelevant now you are the owners, as that can’t be undone.

EssexHebridean

As said earlier - if the deed was shown in the title then the OP would be aware of it, as well as both solicitors. I’m not familiar with this sort of deed - would it usually show in the title or under any previous transfer attached to the title? Where we are for example we have an old transfer shown on our title which prevents us from erecting fences of hedges between our front garden and the ones ordering - but that document is very clearly referred to in the official copies of the title. 

user1977

I would assume it’s more akin to a planning agreement and would only feature in the planning papers.

TBG01

UKresident3333 said:

kinger101 said:

It would be difficult to prove the seller did know.  Your solicitor has failed so my initial complaint would be with them.

But if they signed the deed in 2018, surely that proves they did know? The entire deed is about the parking permit restriction. How could they have signed it without knowing that they've signed it?

Bold of you to assume they actually read what they were signing. 

The Deed could've said "5 years after the date of this Deed the council will automatically take back ownership of the property", they'd still sign and in 5 years time there would be a thread on here complaining about it.

Chief_of_Staffy

TBG01 said:

UKresident3333 said:

kinger101 said:

It would be difficult to prove the seller did know.  Your solicitor has failed so my initial complaint would be with them.

But if they signed the deed in 2018, surely that proves they did know? The entire deed is about the parking permit restriction. How could they have signed it without knowing that they've signed it?

Bold of you to assume they actually read what they were signing. 

It's not boldness, it's a point of law. Whether they read what they were sighing or not is wholly irrelevant.

Section62

user1977 said:

I would assume it’s more akin to a planning agreement and would only feature in the planning papers.

Different councils adopt different approaches - S106 agreements were common in the early days, but these have been legally challenged.  Some councils require a unilateral undertaking which is registered as a land charge.  Others adopt the approach of amending the traffic order to remove the property(ies) from the definition of those eligible to apply for one.

But, as in the OP's case, there is typically an obligation to inform prospective buyers(/tenants) of the existence and nature of the restriction.

gm0

The ta6 and the deed and its obligation to inform - and any further correspondence.  For legal opinion on precedent for a case in this exact situation.  Can you establish a legal position of misleading declaration under the sale contract.  An opinion which will cost something. Not the free intro.

Companies house to see if the entity is still around. And with assets. Vs closed off. (In which case you are likely out of luck).  What happened to sale proceeds - new property - forwarding address (if you have it - may provide a clue).  And deeds for that address (LR download) may point to the same ltd company - or they may not.  Follow the money. Are there assets still in the company. To sue against.  If CH is blank.  Then you may be able to tease it out from LR if you know where they went.  If they closed it off, withdrew assets. ER relief. Shut it down in the past two years.  Went overseas.  Loan shenanigans with other companies, some divis etc. etc.  
Then it may be "gone".  No assets to sue against with the party you bought from. Out of luck.

Valuation of actual loss of amenity caused by the (at this point) alleged misleading declaration

With those three in hand.  Letter before action to the director at the company registered address - to recover your losses. 

A letter which will vary in preparation - depending on whether you are going for a small claims hit of 10k to punish on general principle. Or are prepared for a more substantial and expensive process to pursue a larger sum more vigourously. 

But the costs of legal help per letter and per half hour will build quickly.......and may be recoverable....or they may not

Perhaps if you ask for 50k and will settle for 25k then you get your 25k relatively easily instead of 10k from small claims.  I don't think it need be much more complex than that. In terms of game theory. 0<x<5% of value.

Actually going to court and expert valuation input will likely cost way more than the true amount under dispute.  Overegging the claim invites - see you in court.  It needs to be fairly carefully calibrated to a more or less fair value even if you lower it a bit in later action (with valuation done more properly). 

And then take "go away" you got me money if offered - once they check their legals.

Fighting to the bitter end over this looks a poor approach for both parties.

silvercar

If a residential property is owned by a limited company, it could well be that it was bought as a (rental) investment and so the owners of the Ltd won't have any direct experience of living in the property and the parking issues. However, they would have had to let their tenants know that there was no parking with the tenancy, so they can't claim not to know about it.