£28,500 settlement sought following Japanese knotweed misrepresentation

Following completion of the purchase, they discovered a significant Japanese knotweed infestation within the property. Given the potential impact of knotweed on property values, mortgageability, future saleability and remediation costs, they sought legal advice regarding their position. 

Investigation

The first step was to obtain specialist expert evidence concerning the extent, age and origin of the knotweed infestation. Japanese Knotweed Ltd was commissioned to provide a specialist Japanese knotweed survey. Their lead surveyor (also acting as expert witness) provided the information that was needed to make a claim, he concluded:

• Japanese knotweed was present within the property boundary.

• The infestation was mature and estimated to be between five and ten years old.

• On the balance of probabilities, the infestation pre-dated the completion of the property purchase.

• The neighbouring property also contained a substantial infestation which was likely to be the original source of the encroachment.

• Japanese knotweed material could be identified within photographs taken before the purchase.

Importantly, the the surveyor stated that the infestation was likely to have been present when the sellers completed the TA6 form. 

Defendants’ response

The sellers denied liability. Amongst other arguments, they contended that:

• They were unaware of any Japanese knotweed affecting the property.

• The purchasers had commissioned their own survey prior to purchase.

• A previous TA6 form completed by earlier owners had also indicated that the property was not affected by Japanese knotweed.

• Any losses should be limited to treatment costs rather than any reduction in the property’s value.

The sellers also relied upon a historic building survey undertaken several years before the sale. 

Detailed review of the evidence

Upon reviewing the historic survey, Roach Pittis identified an important point. Although the survey had not identified Japanese knotweed, it expressly stated that no specific inspection had been undertaken to determine whether invasive plant species were present. In other words, the survey did not establish that Japanese knotweed was absent. It merely confirmed that the issue had not been investigated. 

They also reviewed the photographs that Japanese Knotweed Ltd's surveyor provided in the report, which concluded that Japanese knotweed aerial growth was visible within those photographs. 

Assessing the financial loss

Establishing liability is only part of the process. It is equally important to quantify the losses suffered by the purchaser. The legal firm instructed a Chartered Surveyor specialising in valuation disputes. Following inspection and analysis, they concluded that the presence of Japanese knotweed had caused a diminution in value of £28,500 at the date of purchase. 

The valuation report considered not only treatment costs but also market stigma, future saleability concerns and the impact the infestation would have had on a willing purchaser’s assessment of the property’s value. 

Legal issues

Cases involving Japanese knotweed often raise difficult legal questions.

A seller may argue that they were unaware of the infestation. Equally, purchasers will often have obtained their own survey before proceeding with the purchase.

However, each case turns on its own facts. The critical issues frequently include:

• Whether the property was affected by Japanese knotweed at the relevant time.

• Whether the seller’s replies to pre-contract enquiries were accurate.

• Whether the purchaser relied upon those replies.

• What financial loss flowed from the alleged misrepresentation.

In this matter, the expert evidence Japanese Knotweed Ltd provided the legal firm’s clients gave them strong support for their claim. 

Outcome

Following extensive investigations and the preparation of detailed pre-action correspondence, a claim was advanced seeking damages of £28,500 arising from the alleged misrepresentation concerning Japanese knotweed. 

David Richards of Roach Pittis states: "This case demonstrates the importance of obtaining specialist legal and expert advice where invasive species are discovered after a property purchase. It also highlights the significance of the information provided during the conveyancing process and the serious consequences that can arise if those representations prove to be inaccurate." 

Jennifer Holmes of Japanese Knotweed Ltd sums up: "Legal advice should be part of the services provided by a professional knotweed contractor. Teaming up with Roach Pittis means our expert witness surveyor can provide their legal team with the correct information to enable cases such as these to go ahead. It's all about getting the facts."

This article was written by Japanese Knotweed Ltd.