Exchanged contracts, discovered seller not been tranparent
Discussion
AlvinSultana said:
There is another angle to consider.
I dont imagine your lender's underwriters will be comfortable lending against a property which might be worth considerably less than their exposure.
And if you proceed with the purchase, you will need to be as economical with the truth as your seller has been if you wish to complete.
To be honest I dont see how you can proceed with the purchase until the situation is resolved.
That is pure over worrying and scare mongering I dont imagine your lender's underwriters will be comfortable lending against a property which might be worth considerably less than their exposure.
And if you proceed with the purchase, you will need to be as economical with the truth as your seller has been if you wish to complete.
To be honest I dont see how you can proceed with the purchase until the situation is resolved.
This is a definitely a subject that requires more input and advice than you'll extract from the legal eagles here on PH.
To me, it seems like the solicitors you've used have failed you miserably. Any planning that they knew about should have been investigated further, an appeal would have been a dead cert, and any solicitor worth their salt would have known this too.
I'd suggest you seek proper legal advise on this, it'll probably cost you BUT if may be cheaper than the hit you'll take in the long run.
Sounds like a load of stress and has no doubt taken the sheen off things for you.
To me, it seems like the solicitors you've used have failed you miserably. Any planning that they knew about should have been investigated further, an appeal would have been a dead cert, and any solicitor worth their salt would have known this too.
I'd suggest you seek proper legal advise on this, it'll probably cost you BUT if may be cheaper than the hit you'll take in the long run.
Sounds like a load of stress and has no doubt taken the sheen off things for you.
Edited by Evolved on Monday 25th September 14:33
SantaBarbara said:
AlvinSultana said:
There is another angle to consider.
I dont imagine your lender's underwriters will be comfortable lending against a property which might be worth considerably less than their exposure.
And if you proceed with the purchase, you will need to be as economical with the truth as your seller has been if you wish to complete.
To be honest I dont see how you can proceed with the purchase until the situation is resolved.
That is pure over worrying and scare mongering I dont imagine your lender's underwriters will be comfortable lending against a property which might be worth considerably less than their exposure.
And if you proceed with the purchase, you will need to be as economical with the truth as your seller has been if you wish to complete.
To be honest I dont see how you can proceed with the purchase until the situation is resolved.
The underwriter called for more detail. And refused the mortgage.
The borrower was not happy and on their next application requested that my firm not be instructed. They were a bit peeved to see me again...
Still they had bigger problems to come. I think they have been spending some time inside due to mortgage fraud.
Shappers24 said:
In planning terms the site does not have a consent. There is no certainty it will gain a consent. Not sure how you would even discuss reductions in property value and future ability to sell when in legal terms there is no planning consent on the site.
you don't. That's the whole point - its not a reduction in value - its the fact the OP would not have proceeded with the property had the owners declared what they should have.superlightr said:
Shappers24 said:
In planning terms the site does not have a consent. There is no certainty it will gain a consent. Not sure how you would even discuss reductions in property value and future ability to sell when in legal terms there is no planning consent on the site.
you don't. That's the whole point - its not a reduction in value - its the fact the OP would not have proceeded with the property had the owners declared what they should have.As the person who's thread was quoted a few pages ago, I just wanted to add my support to the OP.
As far as I was able to understand with my own research last year, the onus is on the Estate Agent to make the buyer aware of any material information which may affect the property. This is an even stronger statement than simply saying 'they can't lie, or omit information' and is world's away from 'buyer beware'.
There is certain information which the Estate Agent must inform the buyer of, whether or not they even know that information themselves. In other words, they have a duty to know certain information about a property - and ignorance of that information is no defence.
As someone else has also quoted, the TA06 form is quite clear about a vendor's responsibilities - so even if he/she considered that the planning rejection was the end of the matter (so didn't need to declare it) they maybe should have then made a later declaration when they were aware of the strong likelihood of an appeal.
Whilst it sounds, to me, like your solicitor hasn't been quite up to the mark themselves, there appears to be clear evidence of withholding important information from the vendor and possibly the Estate Agent. If the waste plant will affect the property in any way, it should have been disclosed properly.
Our circumstances were a little different as we hadn't exchanged (we were just about to) and even though the location of the proposed road upgrade was not yet known (in fact a year on, it still isn't decided although there are now formal routes being discussed) it was obviously still information that we (as buyers) were entitled to know about prior to becoming committed to purchasing the property. In this respect I can't see the OP's situation being any different.
The only potential fly in the ointment - a Judge may well say that the refusal of the first planning application should have put the OP on notice that an appeal or a fresh application was a possible next step, and that they should have proceeded on the basis that this was possible - i.e. to make an offer in accordance with it, or to withdraw their offer or do something else to mitigate. Honestly I don't know on this point, and this is where advice from a decent property solicitor would be worth its weight in gold.
As far as I was able to understand with my own research last year, the onus is on the Estate Agent to make the buyer aware of any material information which may affect the property. This is an even stronger statement than simply saying 'they can't lie, or omit information' and is world's away from 'buyer beware'.
There is certain information which the Estate Agent must inform the buyer of, whether or not they even know that information themselves. In other words, they have a duty to know certain information about a property - and ignorance of that information is no defence.
As someone else has also quoted, the TA06 form is quite clear about a vendor's responsibilities - so even if he/she considered that the planning rejection was the end of the matter (so didn't need to declare it) they maybe should have then made a later declaration when they were aware of the strong likelihood of an appeal.
Whilst it sounds, to me, like your solicitor hasn't been quite up to the mark themselves, there appears to be clear evidence of withholding important information from the vendor and possibly the Estate Agent. If the waste plant will affect the property in any way, it should have been disclosed properly.
Our circumstances were a little different as we hadn't exchanged (we were just about to) and even though the location of the proposed road upgrade was not yet known (in fact a year on, it still isn't decided although there are now formal routes being discussed) it was obviously still information that we (as buyers) were entitled to know about prior to becoming committed to purchasing the property. In this respect I can't see the OP's situation being any different.
The only potential fly in the ointment - a Judge may well say that the refusal of the first planning application should have put the OP on notice that an appeal or a fresh application was a possible next step, and that they should have proceeded on the basis that this was possible - i.e. to make an offer in accordance with it, or to withdraw their offer or do something else to mitigate. Honestly I don't know on this point, and this is where advice from a decent property solicitor would be worth its weight in gold.
Sorry to hear of your predicament op.
It might be worth calling these guys:-
http://www.beenletdown.co.uk/solicitor-negligence/...
I usually prefer to use local lawyers but they may not be comfortable taking action against 'one of their own'.
It might be worth calling these guys:-
http://www.beenletdown.co.uk/solicitor-negligence/...
I usually prefer to use local lawyers but they may not be comfortable taking action against 'one of their own'.
SantaBarbara said:
Do not Panic
No need to be pessimistic. It may Never happen
You clearly have a Towel and are a man to be reckoned with !! ?No need to be pessimistic. It may Never happen
More importantly, a towel has immense psychological value. For some reason, if a strag (strag: nonhitchhiker) discovers that a hitchhiker has his towel with him, he will automatically assume that he is also in possession of a toothbrush, washcloth, soap, tin of biscuits, flask, compass, map, ball of string, gnat spray, wet-weather gear, space suit etc., etc. Furthermore, the strag will then happily lend the hitchhiker any of these or a dozen other items that the hitchhiker might accidentally have "lost." What the strag will think is that any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the Galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through and still knows where his towel is, is clearly a man to be reckoned with.
The key point is that the planning application was in the public domain and should have been detailed in a search - your attention should have been drawn to it by the solicitor or EA as to what was proposed. This should of been talked through with you, or at least highlighted on documentation sent back to you
Your most likely successful outcome if you want to go down a legal route is to go after the EA or solicitor. These are professionals who are paid for their services and failed. The fact the seller wrote nothing on the TA6 form doesn't get them off the hook but it makes it harder to prove they falsified or withheld information to your detriment
This is going to be a hard one to resolve as I think the seller will sue you for breach if you try to delay or back out. As has previously been mentioned, if you do breach the contract you will forfeit the deposit and any subsequent loss of the price you offered to buy the house at vs what they actual achieve
Really hope you get a successful outcome on this - Really interested to know how you get on!
Your most likely successful outcome if you want to go down a legal route is to go after the EA or solicitor. These are professionals who are paid for their services and failed. The fact the seller wrote nothing on the TA6 form doesn't get them off the hook but it makes it harder to prove they falsified or withheld information to your detriment
This is going to be a hard one to resolve as I think the seller will sue you for breach if you try to delay or back out. As has previously been mentioned, if you do breach the contract you will forfeit the deposit and any subsequent loss of the price you offered to buy the house at vs what they actual achieve
Really hope you get a successful outcome on this - Really interested to know how you get on!
AlvinSultana said:
There is another angle to consider.
I dont imagine your lender's underwriters will be comfortable lending against a property which might be worth considerably less than their exposure.
And if you proceed with the purchase, you will need to be as economical with the truth as your seller has been if you wish to complete.
To be honest I dont see how you can proceed with the purchase until the situation is resolved.
This ^^.I dont imagine your lender's underwriters will be comfortable lending against a property which might be worth considerably less than their exposure.
And if you proceed with the purchase, you will need to be as economical with the truth as your seller has been if you wish to complete.
To be honest I dont see how you can proceed with the purchase until the situation is resolved.
I'd notify the lender asap, also stating your stance wrt to wanting to pull out of the purchase.
With the land currently in use, its not beyond the realms of man to theorise that another application may be submitted at a later date if the appeal is denied. If there is a significant possibility that something just involving daytime vehicle movements, noisy working in such relatively close proximity I'd be doing a runner faster than a fast thing, no matter how 'perfect' the house may be.
Echo66 said:
This ^^.
I'd notify the lender asap, also stating your stance wrt to wanting to pull out of the purchase.
With the land currently in use, its not beyond the realms of man to theorise that another application may be submitted at a later date if the appeal is denied. If there is a significant possibility that something just involving daytime vehicle movements, noisy working in such relatively close proximity I'd be doing a runner faster than a fast thing, no matter how 'perfect' the house may be.
Premature to do thatI'd notify the lender asap, also stating your stance wrt to wanting to pull out of the purchase.
With the land currently in use, its not beyond the realms of man to theorise that another application may be submitted at a later date if the appeal is denied. If there is a significant possibility that something just involving daytime vehicle movements, noisy working in such relatively close proximity I'd be doing a runner faster than a fast thing, no matter how 'perfect' the house may be.
There are insufficient grounds for advising that
SantaBarbara said:
bad company said:
Sorry but that's terrible advice.
Is it really?in some ways the OP may be lucky that the appeal wasn't announced after they moved in.
Echo66 said:
This ^^.
I'd notify the lender asap, also stating your stance wrt to wanting to pull out of the purchase.
Sorry but this is terrible advice, how is it possibly of any benefit to you, to go stirring things up with the lender? They are not going to help you here, they can, and will only make matters worse.I'd notify the lender asap, also stating your stance wrt to wanting to pull out of the purchase.
SantaBarbara said:
Rearrange these words to make a well known phrase or saying
Teacup Storm In
Really? In what way is it not way more than that? £400K is a substantial sum to most people. To risk that much on a property that may well be seriously devalued if an appeal is successful is not something I would do.Teacup Storm In
There have been serious lapses of legal/moral/sensible responsibilities by all parties involved, some of which can have an effect on the outcome.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff