Exchanged contracts, discovered seller not been tranparent
Discussion
gfgdfgergq said:
surveyor said:
From your OP you read about the planning application saw it had been rejected and went ahead.
The appeal had been not been lodged so would not appear.
I think you are in the clear.
Seller has same get out. Appeal after exchange. Thought had won the battle
This might be one of those that falls between the cracks.
This gets the solicitor off the hook because it fell between the cracks in term of the searches. Appeal was lodged after searches but before contract signing.The appeal had been not been lodged so would not appear.
I think you are in the clear.
Seller has same get out. Appeal after exchange. Thought had won the battle
This might be one of those that falls between the cracks.
Seller does not have this get out - they knew 4-6 weeks before exchange!
I don't buy that this sort of thing should come under due diligence.
The reason we pay money for surveys, searches and solicitors etc is because the buyer is the least knowledgeable person in the transaction, both about the specific property and properties in general.
If you were buying a car would you be expected to know if a component had some inherent design fault that was only known by existing owners or from searching for specific terms on specific forums?
The seller of this property was an active participant in the planning resistance. The notion that he/she would not have known about the appeal is ridiculous to my mind. More likely, and pretty obvious to any objective observer, is that the seller realised - or were themselves advised - that the chances of an appeal succeeding were significant, and therefore tried to sell up to avoid the devaluation hit themselves. This tactic obviously only works with a lie of omission to the buyer.
Not sure the solicitor would be on the hook, based on the information they would've seen at the time, but the EA and seller are (imo) clearly culpable, the seller moreso.
(Not a lawyer or property expert though, so take with pinch of salt)
The reason we pay money for surveys, searches and solicitors etc is because the buyer is the least knowledgeable person in the transaction, both about the specific property and properties in general.
If you were buying a car would you be expected to know if a component had some inherent design fault that was only known by existing owners or from searching for specific terms on specific forums?
The seller of this property was an active participant in the planning resistance. The notion that he/she would not have known about the appeal is ridiculous to my mind. More likely, and pretty obvious to any objective observer, is that the seller realised - or were themselves advised - that the chances of an appeal succeeding were significant, and therefore tried to sell up to avoid the devaluation hit themselves. This tactic obviously only works with a lie of omission to the buyer.
Not sure the solicitor would be on the hook, based on the information they would've seen at the time, but the EA and seller are (imo) clearly culpable, the seller moreso.
(Not a lawyer or property expert though, so take with pinch of salt)
Edited by Durzel on Saturday 23 September 23:46
gfgdfgergq said:
desolate said:
Apologies I did mean seller.
Misrepresentation implies that they lied - which is a bit different than staying silent on something and would be a bugger to prove. Can you ascertain if they were involved in the campaign against the planning?
If they were actively involved then it would be hard to claim ignorance.
Have you paid the deposit to the solicitor?
Yes we have evidence they were actively involved and have been for over 12 months.Misrepresentation implies that they lied - which is a bit different than staying silent on something and would be a bugger to prove. Can you ascertain if they were involved in the campaign against the planning?
If they were actively involved then it would be hard to claim ignorance.
Have you paid the deposit to the solicitor?
Yes we paid deposit 6 weeks ago.
This is a material fact, if the agent is local then they should have known about it -ie papers/opposition/seller.
If it were me I would withdraw and take them to court for the return of the deposit. The question is do you want to live there with a waste side near by? If the answer is no then withdraw.
Yes you are in breach of your contract but equally you have been misled by the sellers/estate agents. Actively misled. TPO will im sure agree with this and find in your favour. When is your completion for?
Are you saying they didn’t complete the bit in TA6 which says something like ‘are you aware of any local developments which may affect the property’ at all?
When was this form received/completed in relation to the appeal?
Did your solicitor not clarify with them why the did not complete that part of the form?
When was this form received/completed in relation to the appeal?
Did your solicitor not clarify with them why the did not complete that part of the form?
OP knew about the planning application and knew it had been rejected? Since then, either before or after signing it’s been appealed? Theyve still not won the appeal. And it’s 150m away, depending where you live there could be 20 other houses between the house and it, it’s like appealing to stop a primary school being closed. Lots of contextand subtlety missing.
And its more than possible the property price reflected the situation.
And its more than possible the property price reflected the situation.
The company will probably win the appeal. We had similar in Hatch Warren near Basingstoke, a company wanted to build an anaerobic digestion plant.
Despite residents trying to stop it, it went ahead.
Despite the council promising it wouldn't smell and there wouldn't be lots of lorries racing through the residential streets each day, it stinks and there are lots of lorries racing through the residential streets each day.
Glad we moved!
Despite residents trying to stop it, it went ahead.
Despite the council promising it wouldn't smell and there wouldn't be lots of lorries racing through the residential streets each day, it stinks and there are lots of lorries racing through the residential streets each day.
Glad we moved!
desolate said:
gfgdfgergq said:
A risky strategy though..
Definitely.In my opinion preferable to moving in and facing the possibility of a waste site at the end of the road.
And being in expensive legals with the vendor.
Sounds like they need to be told that they have misrepresented and invited to sue you for breach of contract If they disagree.
Good luck.
This is not an entirely straight forward issue and I don't believe there are any posters in this thread who are qualified to advise on this.
As your solicitors have pointed out, issuing proceedings against the seller is a very risky, and potentially very expensive strategy. The sellers have likely taken their own legal advice on this.
I would always recommend buyers do their own due diligence regarding things like this. Just because an application has been refused doesn't mean it will never happen in future!
As your solicitors have pointed out, issuing proceedings against the seller is a very risky, and potentially very expensive strategy. The sellers have likely taken their own legal advice on this.
I would always recommend buyers do their own due diligence regarding things like this. Just because an application has been refused doesn't mean it will never happen in future!
Pica-Pica said:
This is the solicitor's fault. I sold and there were questions from my buyers such as 'have you had any rows with neighbours', and 'have you ever been burgled'. My solicitor advised she would write along the lines of 'the buyers should conduct their own searches in these matters'. However, I informed my solicitor that I would reply no to both as that was the truth.
I am of the opinion that a buyer and their solicitor should make their own searches with regards this. For instance, does a seller know in detail the Local Development Plan, Flood Risk, Radon Risk, Chancel repair obligations?
I agree. Recently a couple lost in court as they answered no to the flooding question. Buyers bought house and got flooded. Later found out in sellers Facebook loads of pics depicting flooded house on many occasions. I am of the opinion that a buyer and their solicitor should make their own searches with regards this. For instance, does a seller know in detail the Local Development Plan, Flood Risk, Radon Risk, Chancel repair obligations?
Court awards damages, full cost of house and since it lasted 2 years any monies they would've had in the uplifted value in the house.
7795 said:
Pica-Pica said:
This is the solicitor's fault. I sold and there were questions from my buyers such as 'have you had any rows with neighbours', and 'have you ever been burgled'. My solicitor advised she would write along the lines of 'the buyers should conduct their own searches in these matters'. However, I informed my solicitor that I would reply no to both as that was the truth.
I am of the opinion that a buyer and their solicitor should make their own searches with regards this. For instance, does a seller know in detail the Local Development Plan, Flood Risk, Radon Risk, Chancel repair obligations?
I agree. Recently a couple lost in court as they answered no to the flooding question. Buyers bought house and got flooded. Later found out in sellers Facebook loads of pics depicting flooded house on many occasions. I am of the opinion that a buyer and their solicitor should make their own searches with regards this. For instance, does a seller know in detail the Local Development Plan, Flood Risk, Radon Risk, Chancel repair obligations?
Court awards damages, full cost of house and since it lasted 2 years any monies they would've had in the uplifted value in the house.
and searches showed it to have been refused. I dare say there must be t&c's as to where searches must be updated.
The purchasers sols are likely to be acting for the lender also. They may refer back to valuers in the light of new information.
Durzel said:
The seller of this property was an active participant in the planning resistance. The notion that he/she would not have known about the appeal is ridiculous to my mind. More likely, and pretty obvious to any objective observer, is that the seller realised - or were themselves advised - that the chances of an appeal succeeding were significant, and therefore tried to sell up to avoid the devaluation hit themselves. This tactic obviously only works with a lie of omission to the buyer.
Not sure the solicitor would be on the hook, based on the information they would've seen at the time, but the EA and seller are (imo) clearly culpable, the seller moreso.
(Not a lawyer or property expert though, so take with pinch of salt)
Yup, that is our thinking.Not sure the solicitor would be on the hook, based on the information they would've seen at the time, but the EA and seller are (imo) clearly culpable, the seller moreso.
(Not a lawyer or property expert though, so take with pinch of salt)
essayer said:
Are you saying they didn’t complete the bit in TA6 which says something like ‘are you aware of any local developments which may affect the property’ at all?
When was this form received/completed in relation to the appeal?
Did your solicitor not clarify with them why the did not complete that part of the form?
They left that section blank (implying nothing to be aware of).When was this form received/completed in relation to the appeal?
Did your solicitor not clarify with them why the did not complete that part of the form?
Form completed week after appeal made public. See earlier posts - if we give BOD and assume they were unaware at time of declaration - does that get them off the hook? Maybe, if their obligation is only to be honest at time form is signed and anything in 6 weeks after that leading up to exchange is our hard luck.
Muncher said:
This is not an entirely straight forward issue and I don't believe there are any posters in this thread who are qualified to advise on this.
As your solicitors have pointed out, issuing proceedings against the seller is a very risky, and potentially very expensive strategy. The sellers have likely taken their own legal advice on this.
Thanks, we tend to agree this is too riskier a strategy.As your solicitors have pointed out, issuing proceedings against the seller is a very risky, and potentially very expensive strategy. The sellers have likely taken their own legal advice on this.
Wobbegong said:
The company will probably win the appeal. We had similar in Hatch Warren near Basingstoke, a company wanted to build an anaerobic digestion plant.
Despite residents trying to stop it, it went ahead.
Despite the council promising it wouldn't smell and there wouldn't be lots of lorries racing through the residential streets each day, it stinks and there are lots of lorries racing through the residential streets each day.
Glad we moved!
I too have little faith in residents activism / people power, although they are clearly doing the best they can and making some strong arguments. Despite residents trying to stop it, it went ahead.
Despite the council promising it wouldn't smell and there wouldn't be lots of lorries racing through the residential streets each day, it stinks and there are lots of lorries racing through the residential streets each day.
Glad we moved!
CAPP0 said:
Are you mortgaging it? Would the Building Soc have an interest in a potential devaluation of the property in the near future? Worth raising with them too?
Sabotage our own mortgage? It's an option. But we'd still be on the hook for the contract if they pull the lending. I think this is a question for the solicitor Monday morning...One other thing from the TA6 notes
"If you later become aware of any information which would alter any replies you have given,
you must inform your solicitor immediately. This is as important as giving the right answers
in the first place. You should not change any arrangements concerning the property (such as
a tenant or neighbour) without consulting your solicitor."
From what you say, the seller knew about the appeal. I can't see any excuse for them withholding this info from their agent/solicitor.
OP, you might want to gather evidence that they knew of/are involved with the appeal. Facebook and local newspapers are usually a good place to start.
"If you later become aware of any information which would alter any replies you have given,
you must inform your solicitor immediately. This is as important as giving the right answers
in the first place. You should not change any arrangements concerning the property (such as
a tenant or neighbour) without consulting your solicitor."
From what you say, the seller knew about the appeal. I can't see any excuse for them withholding this info from their agent/solicitor.
OP, you might want to gather evidence that they knew of/are involved with the appeal. Facebook and local newspapers are usually a good place to start.
@silentbrown
Amazing, that helps - so it's not a fixed declaration at time of form filling, seller has duty to inform solicitor thereafter too.
We have evidence that they were involved in the case, so I don't think that should be a problem.
Thanks all so far. Will post outcome later this week...
Amazing, that helps - so it's not a fixed declaration at time of form filling, seller has duty to inform solicitor thereafter too.
We have evidence that they were involved in the case, so I don't think that should be a problem.
Thanks all so far. Will post outcome later this week...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff