£10k BILL IS THIS FRAUD

Author
Discussion

Wiccan of Darkness

1,838 posts

82 months

Tuesday 7th November 2017
quotequote all
I saw this last night and wrote a reply, and got logged out when I hit submit grumpy

The charge was made against the previous occupant and should have been declared during conveyancing, so to answer your first question then yes, your solicitor should be writing to the previous occupants as it was their responsibility to inform you, or have the charge repaid.

This is akin to chancel liability, but much more recently, so if the previous occupants were in the house at the time, they knew about the charge and failed to declare.

After 2007, the value of their property plummeted and became unsaleable as a result, so they have benefited financially from the bunds by having a house they could sell. Your position is that you've paid full whack for the property as a result, and not had £100,000 knocked off the purchase price. Clearly the previous occupants paid the £6000 for the works, they didn't have much choice. The £10k was payable on the sale of the house. It doesn't say who pays, though. The vendors might well argue it was factored in to the sale price of the property.

There is a complication though and that is where a water course crosses the bunds, via a sluice gate and a pump system. You will see the evidence in the form of large green metal tubes arching over the bunds. Environment agency manage the gates, and they have been known to fail. They did in Kempsey just up the road from you.

Any local conveyancing firm would have known about these charges, it's not common knowledge but its there all the same, so someone was not on the ball. Your solicitor should chase this up on your behalf, as if the previous occupants have stated it was settled they may not have seen fit to even do a search. They should have done so, anyway.

The flooding aspect is normal around here, hence why any local conveyancing firm would have known about the scheme. IIRC there was a lot of hoo-hah when the bunds were built as to who pays for it. Naturally those affected stood to lose a lot (well, everything, frankly) but those who were not, felt that these people had taken the gamble and lost and shouldn't have to bail them out. Everyone coped by adapting their properties; the ones who didn't had to deal with it. There's no sympathy for ruined axminsters any more.

Whilst not chancel liability, this is along the same lines and building insurance often has a chancel liability clause added so in the event of liability you can claim on buildings insurance. This is another avenue you can check, just in case it gets that far. But by then I'd have got compensated by the conveyancing firm and sued the previous occupants for failure to disclose.

When you or your solicitor contact the council, you need to ask if the bund is a designated flood risk protection asset (or similar wording) which essentially means the bund is the responsibility of the property owner, ie you. It will be registered as a local land charge. My gut feeling is if conveyancing didn't uncover the grant listed against the property, they won't have uncovered any local land charges, either. That's if they even did a search.

And lastly, welcome to the area, I hope you're settling in. One thing I will say is the bunds are not 100% efficient, so get flood ready. Any modifications to the house should have flooding in mind, eg flag stone floors, external rendering used for internal plastering, plug sockets half way up the wall, etc.

turbo9111

Original Poster:

206 posts

146 months

Tuesday 7th November 2017
quotequote all
Wiccan of Darkness said:
I saw this last night and wrote a reply, and got logged out when I hit submit grumpy

The charge was made against the previous occupant and should have been declared during conveyancing, so to answer your first question then yes, your solicitor should be writing to the previous occupants as it was their responsibility to inform you, or have the charge repaid.

This is akin to chancel liability, but much more recently, so if the previous occupants were in the house at the time, they knew about the charge and failed to declare.

After 2007, the value of their property plummeted and became unsaleable as a result, so they have benefited financially from the bunds by having a house they could sell. Your position is that you've paid full whack for the property as a result, and not had £100,000 knocked off the purchase price. Clearly the previous occupants paid the £6000 for the works, they didn't have much choice. The £10k was payable on the sale of the house. It doesn't say who pays, though. The vendors might well argue it was factored in to the sale price of the property.

There is a complication though and that is where a water course crosses the bunds, via a sluice gate and a pump system. You will see the evidence in the form of large green metal tubes arching over the bunds. Environment agency manage the gates, and they have been known to fail. They did in Kempsey just up the road from you.

Any local conveyancing firm would have known about these charges, it's not common knowledge but its there all the same, so someone was not on the ball. Your solicitor should chase this up on your behalf, as if the previous occupants have stated it was settled they may not have seen fit to even do a search. They should have done so, anyway.

The flooding aspect is normal around here, hence why any local conveyancing firm would have known about the scheme. IIRC there was a lot of hoo-hah when the bunds were built as to who pays for it. Naturally those affected stood to lose a lot (well, everything, frankly) but those who were not, felt that these people had taken the gamble and lost and shouldn't have to bail them out. Everyone coped by adapting their properties; the ones who didn't had to deal with it. There's no sympathy for ruined axminsters any more.

Whilst not chancel liability, this is along the same lines and building insurance often has a chancel liability clause added so in the event of liability you can claim on buildings insurance. This is another avenue you can check, just in case it gets that far. But by then I'd have got compensated by the conveyancing firm and sued the previous occupants for failure to disclose.

When you or your solicitor contact the council, you need to ask if the bund is a designated flood risk protection asset (or similar wording) which essentially means the bund is the responsibility of the property owner, ie you. It will be registered as a local land charge. My gut feeling is if conveyancing didn't uncover the grant listed against the property, they won't have uncovered any local land charges, either. That's if they even did a search.

And lastly, welcome to the area, I hope you're settling in. One thing I will say is the bunds are not 100% efficient, so get flood ready. Any modifications to the house should have flooding in mind, eg flag stone floors, external rendering used for internal plastering, plug sockets half way up the wall, etc.
wicked reply !!!,
the previous occupants were 100% in the house both when it flooded and when the bund construction where carried out, i don't think when this place flooded it was the norm as we have lived in the area most our lives to our and other locals knowledge it was a one off some 9-10 years ago when we had the great severn flood due to constant rain remember it well took 8 hours to get home instead of the 40 min commute ...also there are no pipeworks or sluice gates on our property, thanks for your valued advice .....

InitialDave

11,854 posts

118 months

Tuesday 7th November 2017
quotequote all
It certainly seems unfair for them to levee this charge against you.

Sorry.

EW109

290 posts

139 months

Tuesday 7th November 2017
quotequote all
I have had a brief look at this. Let me begin by saying that this is not straightforward, and you would be well advised to consult a solicitor experienced in this field and get him to write to the local authority.

To recap:

- In 2009, the vendor obtained a £10k grant for flood defence work from the local authority.
- The property was purchased in 2017, and the usual searches showed no local land charge in respect of a repayment obligation (a local land charge search would be normal conveyancing practice, and I would be very surprised if one was not performed).
- The local authority now claims that there is an obligation to repay the grant, and that the obligation is secured against the property.

There are two key questions:

1. Does the local authority have the benefit of a local land charge?
2. If it does, what is the effect of non-registration?

The answers would appear to be (1) no, it does not; but (2) if it did, non-registration would not make the local land charge unenforceable. I should add that if there were a valid local land charge, the vendor would probably be in breach of his obligations under the contract of sale.

To understand why this is so, we need to look at the regime under which the grant was made and the local land charges regime.

THE REGIME UNDER WHICH THE GRANT WAS MADE

The paperwork from the local authority sets out conditions for the grant under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“HGCRA”). It is presumably, therefore, the local authority’s position that it made the grant under HGCRA.

The HGCRA contained a detailed regime for the making of grants. These included provisions for repayment (section 45 in particular) which made the repayment obligation a local land charge (section 45(3)).

Most of these provisions of the HGCRA were, however, repealed long before the grant in issue here by The Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002. Unless the grant in issue here was a disabled facilities grant under sections 19-24 (which would not appear likely), the HGCRA regime could therefore not have applied.

The regime under the 2002 Order is very different from that under HGCRA. By reg 3(4), a local authority was allowed to make assistance conditional and was allowed to “take any form of security in respect of the whole or part of any assistance” (reg 3(6)). But there was nothing like the automatic repayment/ local land charge regime for which HGCRA previously provided.

It would rather appear that what has happened here is that the local authority has made a grant using seriously outdated paperwork. The legislation in force at the relevant time (the 2002 Order) did not either provide for any automatic repayment condition or make one a local land charge. Thus I cannot see how the local authority can assert a claim against the purchaser on the basis it is putting forward: there is no relevant local land charge.

THE LOCAL LAND CHARGES REGIME

Non-registration does not make a local land charge unenforceable. Instead, where it is enforced and a purchaser suffers loss by reason of non-registration he is (provided a proper search was made) entitled to compensation from the authority maintaining the register (see the Local Land Charges Act 1975).


turbo9111

Original Poster:

206 posts

146 months

Tuesday 7th November 2017
quotequote all
WOW !!!!
firstly thank you very very much for your time to reply in such detail,
pm sent

Max5476

978 posts

113 months

Tuesday 7th November 2017
quotequote all
turbo9111 said:
Morning,
I can't offer much advise, but that letter reads terribly, and would be setting off my fraud warning as well! The most surprising paragraph being the third, which makes it sound like they are trying it on.

elanfan

5,516 posts

226 months

Tuesday 7th November 2017
quotequote all
I don't see why there's a problem contacting the previous owner directly - it could save a lot of time, hassle and cost. You will gauge from their reaction as to whether they were trying it on and hoping the council would forget about it or whether it was a genuine oversight. In either case they might say send them the bill when it arrives and they'll settle it - a lot simpler than the alternatives.

If they are antsy over it you know you'll have a bit of a fight on your hands.

I know that I'd rather know sooner than later which it's going to be.

oakdale

1,786 posts

201 months

Tuesday 7th November 2017
quotequote all
elanfan said:
I don't see why there's a problem contacting the previous owner directly - it could save a lot of time, hassle and cost. You will gauge from their reaction as to whether they were trying it on and hoping the council would forget about it or whether it was a genuine oversight. In either case they might say send them the bill when it arrives and they'll settle it - a lot simpler than the alternatives.

If they are antsy over it you know you'll have a bit of a fight on your hands.

I know that I'd rather know sooner than later which it's going to be.
Yes, this is what I would do.

turbo9111

Original Poster:

206 posts

146 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
This is what I,m thinking, I have my doubts as the vendors have stitched us up in other ways and from local knowledge which is coming to light they have rumoured history of not liking paying debts ... And I'm being advised not to do so at present...

elanfan

5,516 posts

226 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
Then ask the council to transfer the charge to their new property...laugh

mjb1

2,552 posts

158 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
oakdale said:
elanfan said:
I don't see why there's a problem contacting the previous owner directly - it could save a lot of time, hassle and cost. You will gauge from their reaction as to whether they were trying it on and hoping the council would forget about it or whether it was a genuine oversight. In either case they might say send them the bill when it arrives and they'll settle it - a lot simpler than the alternatives.

If they are antsy over it you know you'll have a bit of a fight on your hands.

I know that I'd rather know sooner than later which it's going to be.
Yes, this is what I would do.
Previous owner was obviously trying to pull a fast one, otherwise they'd have declared it properly and/or settled it with the council at the time of the house sale. On that basis there's probably not much point contacting them for a friendly chat about it.

xjay1337

15,966 posts

117 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
I'd listen to EW on this one.
If you are concerned take it to an experienced solicitor.
But I would not be paying.
Also the letter is awful and does read like a scam.

turbo9111

Original Poster:

206 posts

146 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
I have spoken with our solicitor and he is going to fight the council and go after the vendors on this so will keep posted,
Thanks a zillion for everyones input much appreciated........

SantaBarbara

3,244 posts

107 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
xjay1337 said:
I'd listen to EW on this one.
If you are concerned take it to an experienced solicitor.
But I would not be paying.
Also the letter is awful and does read like a scam.
Also the letter is just preliminary to the Invoicy being produced.

WinstonWolf

72,857 posts

238 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
SantaBarbara said:
xjay1337 said:
I'd listen to EW on this one.
If you are concerned take it to an experienced solicitor.
But I would not be paying.
Also the letter is awful and does read like a scam.
Also the letter is just preliminary to the Invoicy being produced.
What's an Invoicey?

stevensdrs

3,208 posts

199 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
SantaBarbara said:
xjay1337 said:
I'd listen to EW on this one.
If you are concerned take it to an experienced solicitor.
But I would not be paying.
Also the letter is awful and does read like a scam.
Also the letter is just preliminary to the Invoicy being produced.
What's an Invoicey?
http://invoicey.com/ laugh

turbo9111

Original Poster:

206 posts

146 months

Wednesday 22nd November 2017
quotequote all
Thanks for everyones input and advice concerning this problem it is now sorted where the previous owners have picked up the bill .....

InitialDave

11,854 posts

118 months

Wednesday 22nd November 2017
quotequote all
turbo9111 said:
Thanks for everyones input and advice concerning this problem it is now sorted where the previous owners have picked up the bill .....
How cheerfully did they do that?

Gargamel

14,958 posts

260 months

Wednesday 22nd November 2017
quotequote all
turbo9111 said:
Thanks for everyones input and advice concerning this problem it is now sorted where the previous owners have picked up the bill .....
Good result !


Red Devil

13,055 posts

207 months

Wednesday 22nd November 2017
quotequote all
InitialDave said:
turbo9111 said:
Thanks for everyones input and advice concerning this problem it is now sorted where the previous owners have picked up the bill .....
How cheerfully did they do that?
Who knows (or cares)? Whether they smiled or scowled, I suspect they did so knowing that it would cost them a lot more to try and fight it.
My betting is that the LA attempted to gouge the OP because, being the current occupier of the property, he was a far easier target than the seller.
Tracing the latter, who could have moved anywhere, would eat up more time and resources.