Buying a house...... percived nuisance.
Discussion
Under current rules as I understand them, if you're buying a house you can ask the vendor about nucience neighbours, noise, anything that might concern you really.
The vendor doesn't have to tell you anything up front but if you ask specifically they can't lie, and if they do you have recourse in court.
Now what if you were buying a semi detached house from a deaf person who lived next door to a home cinema, hard core house techno enthuiast. Or a sixty a day smoker who never realised his garden backed onto a tyre burning facility?
You could ask about a noise or smell problem and the vendor could answer, perfectly honestly that therre was nothing that affected their enjoyment of the property, but it could be a nightmare for the buyer.
Round thing thrown by field athletes.
The vendor doesn't have to tell you anything up front but if you ask specifically they can't lie, and if they do you have recourse in court.
Now what if you were buying a semi detached house from a deaf person who lived next door to a home cinema, hard core house techno enthuiast. Or a sixty a day smoker who never realised his garden backed onto a tyre burning facility?
You could ask about a noise or smell problem and the vendor could answer, perfectly honestly that therre was nothing that affected their enjoyment of the property, but it could be a nightmare for the buyer.
Round thing thrown by field athletes.
Surely this is a complete no brainer.
I have nusiance neighbors, but there's no way I'd let on, if I was trying to sell. It's not like I can do anything about them. Say, compared with a rotting chassis in a car. If anyone sues, then the problem must be associated with the new buyer.
If the neighbors corroborate it, then they're admitting guilt.
Other than judging by appearances, and limited experience, what can you do. Steer clear, or accept the consequences, but why on earth would you sue the seller?
Sold as seen!
I have nusiance neighbors, but there's no way I'd let on, if I was trying to sell. It's not like I can do anything about them. Say, compared with a rotting chassis in a car. If anyone sues, then the problem must be associated with the new buyer.
If the neighbors corroborate it, then they're admitting guilt.
Other than judging by appearances, and limited experience, what can you do. Steer clear, or accept the consequences, but why on earth would you sue the seller?
Sold as seen!
It's an interesting question!
In any situation where you were trying to prove misrepresentation it would me a matter for the Court to decide whether the seller had misrepesented the situation. I imagine the Court would look at all of the facts and if the seller genuinely did not feel that the neighbour was a nuisance then the Court would find in their favour.
In reality the situations that you've suggested are likely to be very rare and it could be suggested that if you're buying from a deaf seller then you should be put on notice that you may need to make additional enquiries!!
In any situation where you were trying to prove misrepresentation it would me a matter for the Court to decide whether the seller had misrepesented the situation. I imagine the Court would look at all of the facts and if the seller genuinely did not feel that the neighbour was a nuisance then the Court would find in their favour.
In reality the situations that you've suggested are likely to be very rare and it could be suggested that if you're buying from a deaf seller then you should be put on notice that you may need to make additional enquiries!!
mattley said:
but why on earth would you sue the seller?
Beacuse the buyer asked if it was quiet, and the seller lied. That's in the rules now.
My question was could you sue if the vendor was deaf and didn;t know that next door were techno freaks.
Another stupid rule then......
Seems stupid to me anyway, because my nuisance neighbor is already suing me for a deck structure in the garden that's been deemed lawful by the local council. It doesn't seem to me to make sense, because there's nothing I can do about the persistant riot that they project into my living room.
I dunno, I reckon that you ought to be able to sue someone for suing.
What I don't know is how you prove that the "nuisance neighbor" was a "nuisance neighbor" before moving in. And further wouldn't you be better off suing the the actual offender.
As I say I would, but can't afford it. But that's the rules for you.
Edited to add;
Obviously all of that can be loud, and expensive, but a nuisance..... Not really. I've got used to it now!
>> Edited by dilbert on Saturday 21st January 21:20
Additional post to add it's unlikely that the seller would be liable for the whole price of the house, damages would be assessed by the Court and would be likely to be the cost of the diminution in value - the difference between the value of the property with and without the nuisance I'd imagine.
Surely all this is down to perception?
Our neighbours can be noisy in summer, but not excessively. On a friday night someone on the next street usually has loud music and friends round for the evening. Sat outside you hear it.
Doesn't bother me, and I *assume* thats ok, but what if to someone else that is excessive?
Is the court going to then prove your perception of noise or distraction is wrong???
Sounds like a load of bollarks to me to be honest. If something was that bad you'd hope you'd spot it before buying! I went at sat outside my current house a few times on different days at different times, and spoke to some locals before buying.
Like someone further up said, sold as seen. If you can't decide if a property is for you or not, then tough. Just the luck that as you move into a nice new quiet house, some noisy people move in next door in a month! What you going to do then, sue the old neighbours for selling to noisy people
Dave
Our neighbours can be noisy in summer, but not excessively. On a friday night someone on the next street usually has loud music and friends round for the evening. Sat outside you hear it.
Doesn't bother me, and I *assume* thats ok, but what if to someone else that is excessive?
Is the court going to then prove your perception of noise or distraction is wrong???
Sounds like a load of bollarks to me to be honest. If something was that bad you'd hope you'd spot it before buying! I went at sat outside my current house a few times on different days at different times, and spoke to some locals before buying.
Like someone further up said, sold as seen. If you can't decide if a property is for you or not, then tough. Just the luck that as you move into a nice new quiet house, some noisy people move in next door in a month! What you going to do then, sue the old neighbours for selling to noisy people
Dave
Source: The Legal Executive
Memo: the SPIF has changed – watch out for the new form!
Two recent cases concern disclosure of information when property changes hands. The first case concerns the seller’s duty and the second the estate agent’s.
The seller
All practitioners are familiar with the Seller’s Property Information Form (SPIF). Question 2 on Disputes used to read:
1) Do you know of any disputes about this or any neighbouring property?
2) Have you received any complaints about anything you have, or have not, done as owners?
3) Have you made any such complaints to any neighbour?
It is universal practice among sellers to answer NO to these questions. Admitting a dispute with a neighbour may well end any chance of a sale. Neighbour feuds provide television entertainment, but in real life can destroy lives, demolish peace of mind, cause much grief and heartache and lead to a quagmire of vast legal expense.
After a recent court case, sellers should consider carefully how they answer questions on neighbour disputes and the possible consequences of being "economical with the truth".
The case
In July 1999 Mr and Mrs McMeekin bought a house in Waterlooville, Hampshire, for £124,000.(1) The sellers, Mr and Mrs Long, had answered NO to the questions on neighbour disputes. The buyers asked about neighbours and were assured that they were friendly and were introduced to some of them.
Some time after the McMeekins moved in it began to appear that all was not peace and harmony in the neighbourhood. Some neighbours, Mr and Mrs Cooper, who owned the freehold of the access road shared by four neighbouring houses, objected to a delivery vehicle bringing goods to the McMeekins’ home.
It emerged that there had been a continuing dispute over parking and the use of the road. The McMeekins tried to resolve the dispute out of court, but when this failed they brought a claim for compensation against the sellers, Mr and Mrs Long.
(2) They alleged fraudulent and negligent and/or innocent misrepresentation. The verbal reassurance the Longs had given them that the neighbours were ‘good and friendly’ and the written reassurance on the SPIF were, it was alleged, fraudulent. The Longs maintained that there had been issues concerning the access road but that these had been resolved.
Mr Justice Astill heard the case at Portsmouth County Court in October 2002. He found that the sellers had fraudulently misrepresented that there were no disputes with neighbours. The lives of the McMeekins have been, he said “devalued by a continuation of a running dispute [with] Mr and Mrs Cooper about the use of motor vehicles on the access road, which is a continuation of the problem that was suffered by the occupants when the defendants were there.
"That is precisely the kind of information which must be disclosed to a potential purchaser for them to be able to make up their minds whether they wish to buy a property with the running sore of constant disputes and antagonism existing between the owners of the access road and those who have rights of way over it."
The judge said the sellers should have answered YES to the questions on the SPIF asking if there were any neighbour disputes and that the sellers "must have known they were not being truthful when they answered those two questions". He went on: "The seller’s property information form could not be expressed in clearer language. It is not a lawyer’s form, but one which is designed for everyone to understand". The McMeekins accepted an out-of-court settlement of £67,500 for compensation and legal costs.
The SPIF has now changed in one important respect with regard to disputes. The form now asks the following question:
Do you know of any disputes or anything which might lead to a dispute about this or any neighbouring property?
Estate agents
John D Wood & Co (Residential & Agricultural) Ltd v Knatchbull [2003] 08 EG 1313 concerned a property in Notting Hill. The seller, Mr Knatchbull, took the advice of the estate agents, John D Wood, on the asking price, which was £1,500,000 in July 2001. Unknown to the seller, a nearby property was put on the market at the same time for £1,950,000 and the owner accepted an offer of £1,800,000.
The estate agent had known of this development, but did not inform Mr Knatchbull.
Mr Knatchbull refused to pay the commission which had been agreed with the estate agent. He admitted liability for the commission but counterclaimed that the estate agent had been in breach of contract and/or negligent, denying him an opportunity to obtain a higher price than £1,500,000.
The judge heard expert evidence on the value of the property at the time of the sale, concluded that it was about £1,700,000, and, given that there is a margin of error, found that the estate agent had not been negligent in advising on the asking price.
But on the question of whether the estate agent had a duty to inform their client that a neighbouring property was being marketed at the far higher price of £1,950,000, the judge held that they most certainly had such a duty. The duty of care is continuing, and is such:
"That the agent has a duty to exercise reasonable care when marketing a property for sale and if in the course of so doing he becomes aware of any significant event in the market that might influence his principal’s instructions to inform the principal thereof and to advise him accordingly".
The firm had therefore been in breach of the duty of care that they owed to their client, denying him the opportunity of selling at a higher price, and damages were awarded to the dissatisfied customer.
Failure to disclose all relevant information may turn out to be a costly error.
1 See: The Guardian, 4 March 2003.
2 Blake Lapthorn acted for the McMeekins (email: post@blakelapthorn.co.uk, Tel 01489 579990).
3 See: Estate agents: the continuing duty, by John Martin, New Law Journal, 14 March 2003, p. 410.
Memo: the SPIF has changed – watch out for the new form!
Two recent cases concern disclosure of information when property changes hands. The first case concerns the seller’s duty and the second the estate agent’s.
The seller
All practitioners are familiar with the Seller’s Property Information Form (SPIF). Question 2 on Disputes used to read:
1) Do you know of any disputes about this or any neighbouring property?
2) Have you received any complaints about anything you have, or have not, done as owners?
3) Have you made any such complaints to any neighbour?
It is universal practice among sellers to answer NO to these questions. Admitting a dispute with a neighbour may well end any chance of a sale. Neighbour feuds provide television entertainment, but in real life can destroy lives, demolish peace of mind, cause much grief and heartache and lead to a quagmire of vast legal expense.
After a recent court case, sellers should consider carefully how they answer questions on neighbour disputes and the possible consequences of being "economical with the truth".
The case
In July 1999 Mr and Mrs McMeekin bought a house in Waterlooville, Hampshire, for £124,000.(1) The sellers, Mr and Mrs Long, had answered NO to the questions on neighbour disputes. The buyers asked about neighbours and were assured that they were friendly and were introduced to some of them.
Some time after the McMeekins moved in it began to appear that all was not peace and harmony in the neighbourhood. Some neighbours, Mr and Mrs Cooper, who owned the freehold of the access road shared by four neighbouring houses, objected to a delivery vehicle bringing goods to the McMeekins’ home.
It emerged that there had been a continuing dispute over parking and the use of the road. The McMeekins tried to resolve the dispute out of court, but when this failed they brought a claim for compensation against the sellers, Mr and Mrs Long.
(2) They alleged fraudulent and negligent and/or innocent misrepresentation. The verbal reassurance the Longs had given them that the neighbours were ‘good and friendly’ and the written reassurance on the SPIF were, it was alleged, fraudulent. The Longs maintained that there had been issues concerning the access road but that these had been resolved.
Mr Justice Astill heard the case at Portsmouth County Court in October 2002. He found that the sellers had fraudulently misrepresented that there were no disputes with neighbours. The lives of the McMeekins have been, he said “devalued by a continuation of a running dispute [with] Mr and Mrs Cooper about the use of motor vehicles on the access road, which is a continuation of the problem that was suffered by the occupants when the defendants were there.
"That is precisely the kind of information which must be disclosed to a potential purchaser for them to be able to make up their minds whether they wish to buy a property with the running sore of constant disputes and antagonism existing between the owners of the access road and those who have rights of way over it."
The judge said the sellers should have answered YES to the questions on the SPIF asking if there were any neighbour disputes and that the sellers "must have known they were not being truthful when they answered those two questions". He went on: "The seller’s property information form could not be expressed in clearer language. It is not a lawyer’s form, but one which is designed for everyone to understand". The McMeekins accepted an out-of-court settlement of £67,500 for compensation and legal costs.
The SPIF has now changed in one important respect with regard to disputes. The form now asks the following question:
Do you know of any disputes or anything which might lead to a dispute about this or any neighbouring property?
Estate agents
John D Wood & Co (Residential & Agricultural) Ltd v Knatchbull [2003] 08 EG 1313 concerned a property in Notting Hill. The seller, Mr Knatchbull, took the advice of the estate agents, John D Wood, on the asking price, which was £1,500,000 in July 2001. Unknown to the seller, a nearby property was put on the market at the same time for £1,950,000 and the owner accepted an offer of £1,800,000.
The estate agent had known of this development, but did not inform Mr Knatchbull.
Mr Knatchbull refused to pay the commission which had been agreed with the estate agent. He admitted liability for the commission but counterclaimed that the estate agent had been in breach of contract and/or negligent, denying him an opportunity to obtain a higher price than £1,500,000.
The judge heard expert evidence on the value of the property at the time of the sale, concluded that it was about £1,700,000, and, given that there is a margin of error, found that the estate agent had not been negligent in advising on the asking price.
But on the question of whether the estate agent had a duty to inform their client that a neighbouring property was being marketed at the far higher price of £1,950,000, the judge held that they most certainly had such a duty. The duty of care is continuing, and is such:
"That the agent has a duty to exercise reasonable care when marketing a property for sale and if in the course of so doing he becomes aware of any significant event in the market that might influence his principal’s instructions to inform the principal thereof and to advise him accordingly".
The firm had therefore been in breach of the duty of care that they owed to their client, denying him the opportunity of selling at a higher price, and damages were awarded to the dissatisfied customer.
Failure to disclose all relevant information may turn out to be a costly error.
1 See: The Guardian, 4 March 2003.
2 Blake Lapthorn acted for the McMeekins (email: post@blakelapthorn.co.uk, Tel 01489 579990).
3 See: Estate agents: the continuing duty, by John Martin, New Law Journal, 14 March 2003, p. 410.
There is an important consequence of these nuisance rules, however.
IF... we have established that the definition of nuisance is subjective, then the obvious consequence of these new rules, is that every homebuyer SHOULD sue every home seller on the grounds that the mousey librarian that lives next door is a nuisance, because she has the audacity to move around in her own home.
The thing is that it keeps me awake at night and I find it a nuisance. That nuisance could be worth MONEY
This is the real problem. Somehow people with no idea, are making rules that mke no sense. If you ask me it should be stopped, but too many people stand to gain in short term.
Edited to add;
On or about the time TB got in, he declared at the expense of the tories, that he had "no reverse gear", because of the "Tory U turn". I find it amusing that Mr Kinnock this week declared that "Tony Blair has no Gearbox".
>> Edited by dilbert on Sunday 22 January 11:51
IF... we have established that the definition of nuisance is subjective, then the obvious consequence of these new rules, is that every homebuyer SHOULD sue every home seller on the grounds that the mousey librarian that lives next door is a nuisance, because she has the audacity to move around in her own home.
The thing is that it keeps me awake at night and I find it a nuisance. That nuisance could be worth MONEY
This is the real problem. Somehow people with no idea, are making rules that mke no sense. If you ask me it should be stopped, but too many people stand to gain in short term.
Edited to add;
On or about the time TB got in, he declared at the expense of the tories, that he had "no reverse gear", because of the "Tory U turn". I find it amusing that Mr Kinnock this week declared that "Tony Blair has no Gearbox".
>> Edited by dilbert on Sunday 22 January 11:51
mattley said:
I have nusiance neighbors, but there's no way I'd let on, if I was trying to sell.
You don't HAVE to let on, but if a buyer ASKED, you would have to. If you lie you can be sued for the whole price of the house pluse moving and relocation expenses.
I think the question is now in the standard Law Society approved pack which asks about problems or disputes with the neighbours. If it was documented in any way (e.g. you or they called the police or the council or consulted a solictior who sent letters) you would be a very, very foolish person to say there had been no problems.
I would go out of my way not to have to have any problem documented in a seachable verifiable format if I was a seller.
I think that extends to things they should have known about as a reasonable person, like the environmental probalems from a local factory even if they had double glazing, poor hearing and smoked Camel cigarettes.
I went back at various times before exchange of contracts to make sure all was OK, including chatting to neighbours, sitting in the street at 11pm on a Friday night and when the schools are kicking out, even when the local Church was in use.
leftie said:
I have nusiance neighbors, but there's no way I'd let on, if I was trying to sell.
You don't HAVE to let on, but if a buyer ASKED, you would have to. If you lie you can be sued for the whole price of the house pluse moving and relocation expenses.
I think the question is now in the standard Law Society approved pack which asks about problems or disputes with the neighbours. If it was documented in any way (e.g. you or they called the police or the council or consulted a solictior who sent letters) you would be a very, very foolish person to say there had been no problems.
I would go out of my way not to have to have any problem documented in a seachable verifiable format if I was a seller.
I think that extends to things they should have known about as a reasonable person, like the environmental probalems from a local factory even if they had double glazing, poor hearing and smoked Camel cigarettes.
I went back at various times before exchange of contracts to make sure all was OK, including chatting to neighbours, sitting in the street at 11pm on a Friday night and when the schools are kicking out, even when the local Church was in use.
And consequently, if you have bad neighbors, and the money to something about them, think also about yet another new labour hidden cost.
Must admit I live next door to a whinging old bastard. The only times he has ever spoken to me (abusively, I might add) in the four years I've been here, have been complaining about my TVR. Specifically, the exhaust noise and the fumes that supposedly fill his house and aggravate his wife's asthma.
Oddly, whenever I've spoken to the wife, she's a pleasant old stick and has never moaned at all, about anything.
Nothing has ever been written down (that I know of) and none of the other neighbours have an issue (I've asked).
I think to be fair to a buyer, I'd have to point out what a miserable cu*t they could be letting themselves in for
Oddly, whenever I've spoken to the wife, she's a pleasant old stick and has never moaned at all, about anything.
Nothing has ever been written down (that I know of) and none of the other neighbours have an issue (I've asked).
I think to be fair to a buyer, I'd have to point out what a miserable cu*t they could be letting themselves in for
dilbert said:
There is an important consequence of these nuisance rules, however.
IF... we have established that the definition of nuisance is subjective, then the obvious consequence of these new rules, is that every homebuyer SHOULD sue every home seller on the grounds that the mousey librarian that lives next door is a nuisance, because she has the audacity to move around in her own home.
Surely the important thing is *not* to get into a dispute with your neighbours - and certainly not do anything official, like reporting them to the council or Police. Once you've reported it, you're stuffed.
deva link said:
There is an important consequence of these nuisance rules, however.
IF... we have established that the definition of nuisance is subjective, then the obvious consequence of these new rules, is that every homebuyer SHOULD sue every home seller on the grounds that the mousey librarian that lives next door is a nuisance, because she has the audacity to move around in her own home.
Surely the important thing is *not* to get into a dispute with your neighbours - and certainly not do anything official, like reporting them to the council or Police. Once you've reported it, you're stuffed.
You've obviously never had bad neighbors. You don't get a choice, the dispute is thrust upon you. Irrespective, it doesn't make any difference, because as in my case my neighbors are persuing all avenues against me, including civil action.
You see the thing is that the house next door is rented. The landlady isn't interested in selling her property. She's bought a number of other properties in our road, and she's looking to devalue mine as much as she can, so that when I come to sell she can buy it at a knock down rate.
So yes if you're buying, you should persue the people you bought from for the discount that you're entitled to under these ambiguous rules. Further more, if you're a landlord, it makes sense to get chavvy tennants. They keep paying, but make life awful for everyone. This process enables the expansion of the empire in a Monopoly style.
I also agree that if you own a house, it's not a good plan to persue your hellish neigbors unless you think you're going to win. Sadly, it's no longer got anything whatever to do with how hellish or otherwise they actually are. It's got more to do with how much money you have.
But that's socialism.
>> Edited by dilbert on Sunday 22 January 15:28
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff