£10k BILL IS THIS FRAUD
Discussion
In real need of some good advice here, we purchased our new home in Febuary this year a loverly cottage with with 14 acres of land, when we were perusing the purchase the solicitors searches and the selling vendors confirmed that the place had flooded back in 2007 when we had the big floods in this area i.e., Tewkesbury got hit bad along with surrounding areas, The selling vendors also confirmed the bund around the cottage had been constructed to stop it flooding in the future, ok we gave it some thought and decided to purchase.... now 9 months later we have received a letter that the previous owners obtained a grant for £10k from the local district council and the grant is due for repayment upon change of ownership of the property,
basically if the previous owners ever sell the grant must be repaid, This was never mentioned by the selling vendors and our solicitors searches and we paid extra and had two done never picked up on this, But along with the recent shocker letter from the district council says we have records that searches were carried out but no request was made of a legislation search, I have spoken in depth to my solicitor who says there was 100% no evidence that a legislation search was necessary or needed and no evidence from the previous searches picked up on anything untoward , so we now have 2 weeks to pay back the £10k grant as the grant was agreed with a charge on the property regardless of owner, our solicitor who has practiced in this field for over 20 years has never heard of this scenario before i,m in need of some decent legal advice here of where and how to fight this if anyone can help ?????
basically if the previous owners ever sell the grant must be repaid, This was never mentioned by the selling vendors and our solicitors searches and we paid extra and had two done never picked up on this, But along with the recent shocker letter from the district council says we have records that searches were carried out but no request was made of a legislation search, I have spoken in depth to my solicitor who says there was 100% no evidence that a legislation search was necessary or needed and no evidence from the previous searches picked up on anything untoward , so we now have 2 weeks to pay back the £10k grant as the grant was agreed with a charge on the property regardless of owner, our solicitor who has practiced in this field for over 20 years has never heard of this scenario before i,m in need of some decent legal advice here of where and how to fight this if anyone can help ?????
I would have thought either amongst the more technical and legal questions your solicitor would have asked or amongst their additional questionnaire to the sellers (with questions like has the property been broken into etc.) there should be space for this to have been answered or for the sellers to have lied or mis-answered.
Interesting to go back though all the q&a's to see if there is anything.
Interesting to go back though all the q&a's to see if there is anything.
ncjones said:
If it was a charge on the property, the sellers solicitor should have deducted it from the sale proceeds before sending the balance to their client.
This has been discussed and looks like we might have something here thats if the vendors informed there solicitor it almost looks like it was hidden away ....turbo9111 said:
ncjones said:
If it was a charge on the property, the sellers solicitor should have deducted it from the sale proceeds before sending the balance to their client.
This has been discussed and looks like we might have something here thats if the vendors informed there solicitor it almost looks like it was hidden away ....Most property level protection conditions related to house sales, are ensuring the protection is left in place for the new owner, not anything requiring repayment.
You need copies of the agreement / charge and get a second legal opinion if necessary.
ncjones said:
It’ll all sounds really odd. They wouldn’t be able to hide a charge, so I suspect the council didn’t have one. It’s probably a grant agreement, but you’re not a party to that so wouldn’t be liable.
Most property level protection conditions related to house sales, are ensuring the protection is left in place for the new owner, not anything requiring repayment.
You need copies of the agreement / charge and get a second legal opinion if necessary.
Thank you i agree and this opinion has been emailed to my solicitor earlier today and awaiting a response....Most property level protection conditions related to house sales, are ensuring the protection is left in place for the new owner, not anything requiring repayment.
You need copies of the agreement / charge and get a second legal opinion if necessary.
ncjones said:
turbo9111 said:
ncjones said:
If it was a charge on the property, the sellers solicitor should have deducted it from the sale proceeds before sending the balance to their client.
This has been discussed and looks like we might have something here thats if the vendors informed there solicitor it almost looks like it was hidden away ....Most property level protection conditions related to house sales, are ensuring the protection is left in place for the new owner, not anything requiring repayment.
You need copies of the agreement / charge and get a second legal opinion if necessary.
I have heard of such demands being made for such things as solar panel arrays, offered free to the owner, but payable if they sell the house, and even things like ground / air source heating systems.
You clearly need to get a look at the original grant documents showing the terms etc, so contact the council and the previous sellers / owners would be where I would begin.
poo at Paul's said:
Common sense would suggest that such an agreement would be between the people requesting the grant, and the people offering the grant. Inn which case, surely it is the sellers who must pay such a demand?
I have heard of such demands being made for such things as solar panel arrays, offered free to the owner, but payable if they sell the house, and even things like ground / air source heating systems.
You clearly need to get a look at the original grant documents showing the terms etc, so contact the council and the previous sellers / owners would be where I would begin.
Again thanks for your time and input we are on to it, and its looking like there are various ways to fight this not to sure as to which at the moment...I have heard of such demands being made for such things as solar panel arrays, offered free to the owner, but payable if they sell the house, and even things like ground / air source heating systems.
You clearly need to get a look at the original grant documents showing the terms etc, so contact the council and the previous sellers / owners would be where I would begin.
It's either fraud or a cock up I would think. If the debt wasn't registered and transferred I'm not sure how you could be liable for repayment, if it was to be repaid on transfer it should have been a registered charge and the sellers solicitors should have paid it off. I'd send this back to your solicitor to deal with and see where you go from there. I'm not expert, but the Mrs was a conveyancer for 15 years and has never heard of anything like this...or a legislation search in this context.
Edit - you can search for said local authority legislation here - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla
Edit - you can search for said local authority legislation here - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla
Edited by AndyTR on Monday 6th November 21:48
The agreement will be that the PREVIOUS OWNERS have to repay the grant if they sell the property. If the grant providers had a charge over the property this will be to prevent it being sold without them getting their money back as they wouldn't release their charge unless repaid and no one would buy it unless it was unencumbered (so not so much a grant as an indefinite interest free loan repayable on sale of the property).
The intended charge at the Land Registry on the property must not have been registered properly (or at all) hence your solicitor didnt pick it up. And the grant people must have found out about the conveyance and, stupidly, have written to you - presumably in desparation as they do not have a leg to stand on !
Your solicitor should be telling them to Foxtrot Oscar. The grant providers need to take this up with the vendors to whom they made the grant......
The intended charge at the Land Registry on the property must not have been registered properly (or at all) hence your solicitor didnt pick it up. And the grant people must have found out about the conveyance and, stupidly, have written to you - presumably in desparation as they do not have a leg to stand on !
Your solicitor should be telling them to Foxtrot Oscar. The grant providers need to take this up with the vendors to whom they made the grant......
turbo9111 said:
In real need of some good advice here, we purchased our new home in Febuary this year a loverly cottage with with 14 acres of land, when we were perusing the purchase the solicitors searches and the selling vendors confirmed that the place had flooded back in 2007 when we had the big floods in this area i.e., Tewkesbury got hit bad along with surrounding areas, The selling vendors also confirmed the bund around the cottage had been constructed to stop it flooding in the future, ok we gave it some thought and decided to purchase.... now 9 months later we have received a letter that the previous owners obtained a grant for £10k from the local district council and the grant is due for repayment upon change of ownership of the property,
basically if the previous owners ever sell the grant must be repaid, This was never mentioned by the selling vendors and our solicitors searches and we paid extra and had two done never picked up on this, But along with the recent shocker letter from the district council says we have records that searches were carried out but no request was made of a legislation search, I have spoken in depth to my solicitor who says there was 100% no evidence that a legislation search was necessary or needed and no evidence from the previous searches picked up on anything untoward , so we now have 2 weeks to pay back the £10k grant as the grant was agreed with a charge on the property regardless of owner, our solicitor who has practiced in this field for over 20 years has never heard of this scenario before i,m in need of some decent legal advice here of where and how to fight this if anyone can help ?????
The previous owner ha to pay. It was a charge on them, not the property basically if the previous owners ever sell the grant must be repaid, This was never mentioned by the selling vendors and our solicitors searches and we paid extra and had two done never picked up on this, But along with the recent shocker letter from the district council says we have records that searches were carried out but no request was made of a legislation search, I have spoken in depth to my solicitor who says there was 100% no evidence that a legislation search was necessary or needed and no evidence from the previous searches picked up on anything untoward , so we now have 2 weeks to pay back the £10k grant as the grant was agreed with a charge on the property regardless of owner, our solicitor who has practiced in this field for over 20 years has never heard of this scenario before i,m in need of some decent legal advice here of where and how to fight this if anyone can help ?????
I would suggest that the poor spelling etc would lead me to believe that this is possibly a con.
The fact that there is no signing, the signing is very vague.
But you are right to highlight it and go through the correct people, seems very plausible at face value doesn't it?
ABut it is clear you have covered yourself as much as you can, so I would perhaps think they have picked on the wrong person here I hope.
The fact that there is no signing, the signing is very vague.
But you are right to highlight it and go through the correct people, seems very plausible at face value doesn't it?
ABut it is clear you have covered yourself as much as you can, so I would perhaps think they have picked on the wrong person here I hope.
IANAL, but the small print is the important part and it is not terribly legible, perhaps rescan it in a better or bigger resolution?
But it says that when an owner (of a gaff where assistance has been paid) makes a relevant disposal of the property, he shall repay the assistance provided on demand.
It also says that the owner shall inform them of his intention to sell the property and give them reasonable information about it.
It also says "this condition remains in force and is binding not only on the person who gives the certificate, but also on any person who is for the time being an owner of the dwelling......"
Now that could be the bit they mean about the liability transferring, but I'd say it is 1) a bit ambiguous, (ie who is the person who gives the certificate), and 2) a potential unfair contract term. ,how can you be liable for a debt you did not incur, agree to, have knowledge of, is not registered anywhere (seemingly) and even that you don't know even still exisits, ie has not been settled by the prior owner??.
Regardless, it appears your seller would be the first port of call for them, (maybe he/ she have been), so I would pass on their address to the council so they can chase. As far as I can see you have entered into no contract with the council. Unless they have registered a charge on the property, I cannot see how they can say in their letter that the debt remains with the property? The agreement states that the "cost of works is set as a local land charge". Was it?
I think there is plenty for a proper lawyer and contract expert to get their teeth into on this, so fight it. I'd also be onto the seller's solicitors to ask for proof that the seller informed the council of their intention to sell the property, as per the terms of the agreement they entered into.
Such an agreement appears to be full of holes. If there is no record of the charge, how does anyone know if the liability is still even due? How do you know the original sellers haven't paid it already? I'd be asking more questions and getting more answers before accepting any liability here.
Also, the letter is terrible, spelling is mental and anyone using the word "yourselves" instead of "you" is just trying to make them sound more important or knowledgeable than they really are. Certainly it arouses suspicion!
But it says that when an owner (of a gaff where assistance has been paid) makes a relevant disposal of the property, he shall repay the assistance provided on demand.
It also says that the owner shall inform them of his intention to sell the property and give them reasonable information about it.
It also says "this condition remains in force and is binding not only on the person who gives the certificate, but also on any person who is for the time being an owner of the dwelling......"
Now that could be the bit they mean about the liability transferring, but I'd say it is 1) a bit ambiguous, (ie who is the person who gives the certificate), and 2) a potential unfair contract term. ,how can you be liable for a debt you did not incur, agree to, have knowledge of, is not registered anywhere (seemingly) and even that you don't know even still exisits, ie has not been settled by the prior owner??.
Regardless, it appears your seller would be the first port of call for them, (maybe he/ she have been), so I would pass on their address to the council so they can chase. As far as I can see you have entered into no contract with the council. Unless they have registered a charge on the property, I cannot see how they can say in their letter that the debt remains with the property? The agreement states that the "cost of works is set as a local land charge". Was it?
I think there is plenty for a proper lawyer and contract expert to get their teeth into on this, so fight it. I'd also be onto the seller's solicitors to ask for proof that the seller informed the council of their intention to sell the property, as per the terms of the agreement they entered into.
Such an agreement appears to be full of holes. If there is no record of the charge, how does anyone know if the liability is still even due? How do you know the original sellers haven't paid it already? I'd be asking more questions and getting more answers before accepting any liability here.
Also, the letter is terrible, spelling is mental and anyone using the word "yourselves" instead of "you" is just trying to make them sound more important or knowledgeable than they really are. Certainly it arouses suspicion!
Edited by poo at Paul's on Tuesday 7th November 10:14
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff