© 2025 News On The Block. All rights reserved.
News on the Block is a trading name of Premier Property Media Ltd.
© 2025 News On The Block. All rights reserved.
News on the Block is a trading name of Premier Property Media Ltd.
Suppose the flat above you is occupied by leaseholders who make a lot of noise, stamp around on the ceiling late at night, play loud music and generally make life unpleasant. Or, suppose the next door flat is notorious for having lots of visitors often into the early hours of the morning that can be disturbing with doors opening and shutting. Perhaps these are the reasons why you wish to sell. You then get from your Solicitor what is called a ‘Seller’s Property Information Form’ (SPIF). It will ask you about disputes with neighbours and complaints. Other information forms, if used, will contain similar questions. Now you are in a quandry. What do you do? Do you tell the prospective purchaser about the problems that you have endured? Do you fudge the question? Or do you say nothing at all? You do not want to lose this purchaser. You are counting the days until you can leave the flat.
In a recent case in the High Court a not dissimilar situation arose. When the new purchasers found themselves confronted with the same problems as the previous owner they decided to sue.
Consequently an action was brought in the Court for damages against the previous owner and the allegations were that fraudulently, or negligently, or innocently, misrepresentations were made. In addition you may have said things when the purchaser was shown around your flat which were misleading about your neighbours and these may also be quoted against you. However, in the particular information form in this particular case when asked whether there had been any disputes with neighbours, the answer was given in the negative and similarly to the question about complaints.
In fact there had been confrontations about various matters and, what is more, the SPIF form contains a very important note telling sellers that it is important that the answers that are given are correct because a purchaser will rely on them in deciding whether or not to go ahead. Incorrect information given to the purchaser through your Solicitors or mentioned to the purchaser in conversation between you may mean that the purchaser can claim compensation from you and even refuse to complete the purchase (if the truth comes out before completion).
By the time that evidence had been called from other neighbours the Judge was in no doubt about the outcome. The evidence of the previous owners was simply disbelieved and the Judge said “In this case the previous owner should have told the truth: there had been disputes”. The Court said that this was precisely the kind of information that must be disclosed to a potential purchaser so that the purchaser can make up his mind as to whether or not he wishes to buy a property with the running sore of constant disputes and antagonism with neighbours. The SPIF form, said the Judge, could not be expressed in clearer language. It was not a lawyer’s form but was one that was designed for everyone to be able to understand. There could be no confusion on this understanding about the questions. This went beyond carelessness or recklessness. This was straightforward falsity. So although you have to reach a high standard of proof to establish a fraudulent misrepresentation, this had been achieved and now the previous owner faced the prospect of the Court assessing compensation. That compensation under the Misrepresentation Act would reflect the diminution in the value of the property.