A London furniture designer who discovered invasive Japanese knotweed lurking behind the garden shed of his recently purchased £700,000 dream home has successfully sued the seller for £32,000 in damages plus substantial legal fees. Read on to find out how this example of a property misrepresentation claim played out.
The ‘Knotty’ Affair – What Happened in this Case?
Mr Downing bought the house from Mr Henderson in August 2018 but while tidying the garden shortly after he moved in, he discovered the knotweed. Japanese knotweed is a pernicious weed that spreads rapidly and when left untreated, can cause substantial damage to property and land. It is difficult and expensive to get rid of it and can affect the future sale and value of the property.
Mr Downing subsequently sued Mr Henderson for misrepresentation on the basis that he had responded ‘no’ to the question on the TA6 property information form seeking to establish whether the property had been affected by knotweed. The TA6 form is a form that sellers of property are obliged to complete and send to the buyer’s solicitors as part of the process of selling their house. Among other things, sellers are legally obliged to declare that Japanese knotweed is present if it is known about.
The Seller’s Defence
In response, Mr Henderson argued that he ‘reasonably believed’ that he was telling the truth when he completed the form as the knotweed had previously been obscured by a large bush while he owned the property and he had not noticed it despite spending a lot of time in the garden. He also argued that he had arranged for a surveyor’s report on moving into the property in 2015 and there had been no finding of knotweed.
The Result – The Importance of the T6 Form
The judge held in favour of the buyer, finding that Mr Henderson did not genuinely believe that his property had not been affected by the knotweed at the time of the sale. During the course of the court proceedings, a joint knotweed expert gave evidence indicating that knotweed had probably been in the garden since 2012 and that it must have been visible as its canes had possibly been two metres tall at one point and might have also been overhanging the neighbour’s garden. There was also evidence that the knotweed had been previously treated with weedkiller. As a result, the judge held that Mr Henderson could not discharge the burden on him of showing that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the property was not affected by knotweed.
This decision highlights the dangers of giving a false answer on the T6 property information form and how it can lead to a claim of misrepresentation.
Damages and Costs Awarded
As a result of this finding, Mr Henderson was ordered to pay £32,000 damages to cover the costs of investigating and excavating the plant as well as the decrease in value of his former house. He was also obliged to cover Mr Downing’s lawyers’ bills of up to £95,000 as well as his own legal costs.
If you need legal advice on a property misrepresentation claim, get in touch with us today so we can review your claim and discuss your next steps.
