Property Sale

MagicSean

Just a bit of a hypothetical in relation to a property sale. A sells a property to B. 5 years later, B's solicitor contacts A and demands copies of planning applications and engineer reports for an extension that had been added before sale. B's solicitor claims that they were under the impression that the property purchased was 5 rooms and A's Solicitor (who has since been disbarred) told them this, even though B had viewed the property and knew exactly what they were buying (10 rooms). B's solicitor has informed A that they will be issuing court proceedings within one week.

My questions are
1) In a case like this should court proceedings not be against A's solicitor who is the one who lied or acted negligently?
2) Assuming the contracts signed by both parties incorrectly said 5 rooms but both parties knew the property was 10 rooms (and property was also advertised as such) would there not be a liability on both sides for this mistake?

bath handle

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Just a bit of a hypothetical in relation to a property sale. A sells a property to B. 5 years later, B's solicitor contacts A and demands copies of planning applications and engineer reports for an extension that had been added before sale. B's solicitor claims that they were under the impression that the property purchased was 5 rooms and A's Solicitor (who has since been disbarred) told them this, even though B had viewed the property and knew exactly what they were buying (10 rooms). B's solicitor has informed A that they will be issuing court proceedings within one week.

My questions are
1) In a case like this should court proceedings not be against A's solicitor who is the one who lied or acted negligently?
2) Assuming the contracts signed by both parties incorrectly said 5 rooms but both parties knew the property was 10 rooms (and property was also advertised as such) would there not be a liability on both sides for this mistake?

So A bulids a dodgy extension, hires a dodgy solicitor and sells the property to B with a whole set of dodge paperwork.
Of course A ostensibly being sued. It is up to A if he wants to join his former solicitor as a Third Party. He might recover a contribution to B's damages.

Victor

Who did the drawings for the sale? Who checked the planning?

I think B would find it difficult to succeed in court.

MagicSean

bath handle wrote: »

So A bulids a dodgy extension, hires a dodgy solicitor and sells the property to B with a whole set of dodge paperwork.
Of course A ostensibly being sued. It is up to A if he wants to join his former solicitor as a Third Party. He might recover a contribution to B's damages.

Nothing dodgy about the extension. Planning was all in order. And A had no way of knowing the solicitor was dodgy until after the sale.

Victor wrote: »

Who did the drawings for the sale? Who checked the planning?

I think B would find it difficult to succeed in court.

I would have thought the same. A was completely honest, the property was advertised as 10 rooms and B had viewed the property. If the contract states 5 rooms then this is a term both of them knew to be wrong but both signed anyway despite the mistake.

nuac

What is the complaint here?

If the planning for the extension is in order and the conditions coomplied with, what is the problem?

MagicSean

nuac wrote: »

What is the complaint here?

If the planning for the extension is in order and the conditions coomplied with, what is the problem?

That's what I was wondering. The only thing I can think of is breach of contract in some way if the contract was incorrect.

nuac

If the complaint is that the contract refers to a five room house and in fact there are ten rooms, and planning is in order, then I can see no problem.

MagicSean

nuac wrote: »

If the complaint is that the contract refers to a five room house and in fact there are ten rooms, and planning is in order, then I can see no problem.

It sounds odd doesn't it. You'd understand if it was the other way around and they got less than they thought but it sounds strange that they would complain about getting more then they expected. Unless there is some problem with the extension such as damp or something.

On the other hand it was a property deal so it is likely the property has gone down in value dramatically so maybe they would be looking to have the contract voided and recoup their money based on a contract flaw.

Jo King

A would be liable for any act of his solicitor, who was his agent, so he is being sued. B's solicitor may be trying to cover his ass after doing a sloppy conveyance. The paperwork for the extension should have been sought at the closing. Now the bank or a purchaser wants the paperwork for the extension, which B's solicitor can't supply, because he didn't look for it.
A is going to have to sort the matter out. If his solicitor denied there was an extension on the house there will be an attempt to blame A for the whole mess.

MagicSean

Jo King wrote: »

A would be liable for any act of his solicitor, who was his agent, so he is being sued.

I presume A would in turn sue his solicitor?

Jo King wrote: »

B's solicitor may be trying to cover his ass after doing a sloppy conveyance. The paperwork for the extension should have been sought at the closing. Now the bank or a purchaser wants the paperwork for the extension, which B's solicitor can't supply, because he didn't look for it.

Are planning applications not public record though?

Jo King wrote: »

A is going to have to sort the matter out. If his solicitor denied there was an extension on the house there will be an attempt to blame A for the whole mess.

Blamed for what though? Assuming all the planning was in order what would A's liability be for?

Victor

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Are planning applications not public record though?

Essentially. However, finding hte documentation relating to very old applications may be difficult.

bath handle

[/Quote]

Are planning applications not public record though?

[/QUote]
The engineers certificate of compliance would not be on the planning file. it should have been obtained at closing.

MagicSean

bath handle wrote: »

The engineers certificate of compliance would not be on the planning file. it should have been obtained at closing.

It would appear I was mistaken. The buyer was not looking for the original engineers report. His solicitor is demanding the seller commission a new engineers report and architects report to prove the house is structurally sound and in compliance with planning applications. This is five years after the sale and the house would appear to have been left unoccupied and without maintenance for the majority of it.