Exchanged contracts, discovered seller not been tranparent

[anonymous-user]

gfgdfgergq said:

silentbrown said:

I know that councils are pretty risk-averse about refusing planning, because of the costs and likelihoods of appeals. So they're likely to be confident of winning.

At this stage the planning appeal is nothing to do with the council, it's with the planning inspectorate who approximately 40% of the time overrule the local council.

I think what silentbrown means is that councils do not turn down applications unless they feel very confident that the applicant will also fail at appeal. It's too expensive for them to have weak reasons for refusal and then have an appeal succeed.

[surveyor]

garyhun said:

gfgdfgergq said:

silentbrown said:

I know that councils are pretty risk-averse about refusing planning, because of the costs and likelihoods of appeals. So they're likely to be confident of winning.

At this stage the planning appeal is nothing to do with the council, it's with the planning inspectorate who approximately 40% of the time overrule the local council.

I think what silentbrown means is that councils do not turn down applications unless they feel very confident that the applicant will also fail at appeal. It's too expensive for them to have weak reasons for refusal and then have an appeal succeed.

hmm.. The officers might not recommend it, but I think your putting a lot of faith in the Councillors.

[Muncher]

Good luck but I would be absolutely astounded if the sellers agree to your proposal.

[timetex]

gfgdfgergq said:

I paid the EA a visit today, and it *appears* as though they were completely unaware, so for now we'll remove them from the equation.

Edited by gfgdfgergq on Monday 25th September 18:28

Remember, it doesn't matter what the Estate Agent KNEW... what matters is whether or not it was 'material information' and whether they SHOULD have known.

Don't get letting them off the hook quite so quickly... although in your case the vendor is clearly the pivot here, having known the truth but clearly failed to disclose it.

Also, don't forget the contract with the vendor works from both sides. You should perhaps be asking THEM to withdraw from the contract and offering them the chance to do this without penalty on the basis that if they force you to go through with the purchase, you'll be after them for damages for breach / providing false and misleading information on the TA6.

So they very much have something to lose, and (right now) the opportunity to walk away without a (big) financial penalty (assuming they haven't also exchanged on somewhere else!).

Give them an ultimatum, perhaps... either:

a) they cancel the contract / withdraw without penalty, and both sides walk away paying their own conveyancing costs or,
b) they force you to complete (with or without amendments) and risk you coming after them for damages

It really depends how risk-averse they are.

Put it this way - if I was threatened with that I'd take the easy option, I think... unless I was absolutely committed to purchasing somewhere else with linked funds in which case that would really throw the cat amongst the pigeons.

Looking forward to the conclusion of this one...

[Muncher]

Presumably the sellers have an onward chain so that's not an option for them. I think I would also be fairly relaxed in their position.

[silentbrown]

surveyor said:

garyhun said:

I think what silentbrown means is that councils do not turn down applications unless they feel very confident that the applicant will also fail at appeal. It's too expensive for them to have weak reasons for refusal and then have an appeal succeed.

hmm.. The officers might not recommend it, but I think your putting a lot of faith in the Councillors.

Yes, that's what I meant.

Agree with surveyor re councillors vs officers! - a look at the officers report online should show their recommendations.

Good luck, OP, and let us know when the dust finally settles.

[anonymous-user]

surveyor said:

garyhun said:

gfgdfgergq said:

silentbrown said:

I know that councils are pretty risk-averse about refusing planning, because of the costs and likelihoods of appeals. So they're likely to be confident of winning.

At this stage the planning appeal is nothing to do with the council, it's with the planning inspectorate who approximately 40% of the time overrule the local council.

I think what silentbrown means is that councils do not turn down applications unless they feel very confident that the applicant will also fail at appeal. It's too expensive for them to have weak reasons for refusal and then have an appeal succeed.

hmm.. The officers might not recommend it, but I think your putting a lot of faith in the Councillors.

I'm just explaining the other post - I have no faith to talk of. I do however have experience of planning decisions taking into account the possibility of appeal, as it's an expensive mistake for the council if successful.

[CAPP0]

gfgdfgergq said:

Since we're only going to be in the house for 2-3 years

I refer you back to my previous comment about future saleability. Even if you buy it cheap, if the waste site gets built whilst you are still there, who's to say anyone will buy it subsequently - and if so, at what price? If the waste plant turns out to be noisy, smelly and generate traffic, people might not want it at half the price. It could remain blighted and then you're stuck with it.

[anonymous-user]

CAPP0 said:

gfgdfgergq said:

Since we're only going to be in the house for 2-3 years

I refer you back to my previous comment about future saleability. Even if you buy it cheap, if the waste site gets built whilst you are still there, who's to say anyone will buy it subsequently - and if so, at what price? If the waste plant turns out to be noisy, smelly and generate traffic, people might not want it at half the price. It could remain blighted and then you're stuck with it.

My thinking too.

[elanfan]

Final outcome will doubtless be interesting. What were your solicitors views on them being partially to blame?

There's a few proper legal types on here - I'm a little surprised that no one has ventured an opinion.

Edited by elanfan on Monday 25th September 23:33

[Heres Johnny]

gfgdfgergq said:

We would of course accept a independent valuation on the house if the appeal goes through, to assess any financial damage. It may be less than estimated - great! In which case we're happy just to take the difference. We can move if the new waste site is terrible without the loss. And if it doesn't go through, we're happy to pay full agreed price. This will be the proposal we'll put to them.

My guess is they will probably reject this proposal, although I do feel it's pretty reasonable. Since we're only going to be in the house for 2-3 years due to work, we could be looking at a potential £40k downside simply because of the action the sellers have taken here. Yes, I know housing markets go up and down, but that affects the whole market not one particular property.

Anyway, if that doesn't fly we'll have a decision to make based on potential upside/downside of pulling out the contract. There is the option to claim damages up to 6 years later, I found out today, which is obviously the less risky option.

I will stop posting updates herewith but I will be back with the outcome in due course!

Edited by gfgdfgergq on Monday 25th September 18:28

And what if the price you’re paying has already factored in the potential issue, the mortgage company knew about it, the selller knew about the potential curse and priced accordingly. Everybody may think it’s fair value in the circumstances but if the problem goes away, the house goes up in value by 10%? Are you going to pay the uplift?

[Nezquick]

timetex said:

Also, don't forget the contract with the vendor works from both sides. You should perhaps be asking THEM to withdraw from the contract and offering them the chance to do this without penalty on the basis that if they force you to go through with the purchase, you'll be after them for damages for breach / providing false and misleading information on the TA6.

So they very much have something to lose, and (right now) the opportunity to walk away without a (big) financial penalty (assuming they haven't also exchanged on somewhere else!).

Give them an ultimatum, perhaps... either:

a) they cancel the contract / withdraw without penalty, and both sides walk away paying their own conveyancing costs or,
b) they force you to complete (with or without amendments) and risk you coming after them for damages

It really depends how risk-averse they are.

Put it this way - if I was threatened with that I'd take the easy option, I think... unless I was absolutely committed to purchasing somewhere else with linked funds in which case that would really throw the cat amongst the pigeons.

Looking forward to the conclusion of this one...

This is what I'd do too.

The plus-side of that is that if you formally make them that offer - i.e. walk away now with no penalties whatsoever, if you do subsequently pursue them for damages and this ends up in Court, any Judge will see your offer as a genuine attempt to try and conclude the issue and will come down heavily on them in terms of costs/damages if they lose.

[Ken Figenus]

I see progressing as too risky - who is to say they are solvent or still here when it's time to sue for losses down the line? And do you want that hassle and risk and cost?

You have been purposefully and deliberately misled by up to 3 parties as I see it. I would be absolutely tamping (jolly irate)! Inviting the vendors to withdraw without penalty or a potential suing down the line as timetex suggests above seems a reasonable option.

I wouldn't be relying on my original solicitor for advice too much here either as they will be thinking about No1 first and their lack of application...

Good luck whatever you decide

[Who_Goes_Blue]

Don't you just hate thread bumpers with nothing to add. Hey OP! What's the latest?

[Andehh]

Who_Goes_Blue said:

Don't you just hate thread bumpers with nothing to add. Hey OP! What's the latest?

...but yes.

[gfgdfgergq]

Completion is scheduled for two weeks (pushed back at both parties discretion). We are still negotiating and have not found a satisfactory resolution yet.

But it is notable that seller's solicitor is proposing various retainer options and therefore we feel they are v worried about us breaching contract and inviting them to sue, which would leave seller in a real pickle.

Will update in two weeks.

[anonymous-user]

Cheers for the update!

[Heres Johnny]

Don’t they have 10% of the price after you exchanged and you’d need to sue to recover that?

[gfgdfgergq]

Heres Johnny said:

Don’t they have 10% of the price after you exchanged and you’d need to sue to recover that?

This was our original proposal, that 10% be held in retention pending the planning outcome. They rejected so now we are into higher stakes territory