The claimants made an offer, which was accepted subject to contract, to purchase the defendants’ house. The defendants’ neighbours had an adult son, who lived with them. He had created problems for the defendants over a period of time by trespassing on their property and harassing them. The first defendant had complained to the neighbours, and had eventually sent them a note in which he threatened legal proceedings if the trespass did not cease.
In the course of the conveyancing process, the defendants completed a seller’s property information form in the Law Society’s standard form. The form required them to answer various questions, including “2.1: Do you know of any disputes about this or any neighbouring property?” The first defendant answered in the negative. They also answered “No” to other relevant questions, including 3.1, as to whether they had sent or received any letters or notices that affected their property in any way.
Following completion, the claimants began to experience similar problems with the neighbour’s son. They brought proceedings against the defendants, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation in respect of the answers given in the form. The first defendant gave evidence that he had considered mentioning the problems, but had decided against doing so since there was no real “dispute”, merely his complaints, and because the problems related only to antisocial behaviour and were not about the property in the way that, for example, a dispute over boundaries would have been.
Held: The claim was allowed.
The word “dispute” in question 2.1 undoubtedly covered a situation where one party had threatened legal proceedings against another. In the instant case, the defendants had threatened proceedings over the behaviour of the neighbours’ son, and that amounted to a dispute. The dispute was “over the property” in that trespass was involved; question 2.1 was not limited to disputes affecting title such as boundary disputes and easements. Accordingly, the answer given had been false. The answer to question 3.1 had likewise been false, since the letter sent by the first defendant had concerned trespass and had clearly affected the defendants’ property.
The first defendant had been well aware of the consequences of his answers. He had carefully considered whether to disclose the dispute and had been aware that disclosing it would have been the honest thing to do. He had known that the answers given in the form were not truthful, and, in the circumstances, his behaviour had been fraudulent.
Evan Ashfield (instructed by Lawrence Hamblin, of Henley on Thames) appeared for the claimants; Adrian Jackson (instructed by Foys Solicitors, of Rotherham) appeared for the defendants.
Sally Dobson, barrister
