Skip to main content

Conveyancing Case Law - William Sindall Plc -v- Cambridgeshire County Council [1993]

By

This was a conveyancing-related case where land was bought for developmental purposes, but the buyer later found a drainage pipe which very much limited the potential of the land. The pipe's existence had not been disclosed on the sale, because it was not known to the seller. Held: Under the National Conditions of Sale, it is the purchaser who takes the risk of there being easements unknown to the seller.

The court clarified that a seller was not liable for damages for misrepresentation if he had taken reasonable steps to make known to the purchaser what he himself knew.

Clause 14 of the Conditions attached to the Agreement for sale in this was is not an exclusion clause, but rather qualifies the sellers obligations. It did not therefore fall to be tested for reasonableness.

In using the phrase 'not so far as the vendor is aware' replies to preliminary enquiries the court determined that that such a statement was akin to a representation that the seller’s conveyancing solicitor and the seller had each made appropriate enquiries to support the statement.

The court concluded: 'knowledge may go beyond what is in somebody's head, that it requires a solicitor to read his file and to read it properly and to make . . . reasonable and prudent investigation of the grounds upon which the belief is based . . .'

The Law Society through their magazine the Gazette in an article about this case states “The effect of this case would appear to be that a prudent conveyancer should check the deeds carefully, read the file and any other relevant files the firm may have by checking the filing records, and following this make any other reasonable and prudent investigations. Checking answers given on SPIF1 must be part of the solicitor's duty as a prudent conveyancer. Failure to do this would surely amount to at least inadequate professional service, and probably professional negligence”.

Although the Law Society state “The Society recommends that solicitors complete the second part of the SPIF form.” There is no binding duty of the seller’s conveyancing solicitor to complete Part II of the Property Info Questionnaire.

It is due to this case of William Sindall Plc -v- Cambridgeshire and the statement by the Law Society that we at Fridays endeavor to ensure that where a seller completes a Sellers Property Information form that we ask the Seller’s lawyer to complete a Sellers Property Information Form Part II. In other words attempt give the buyer that we are acting for maximum protection and entitlement to rely on the information provided by the seller.

Unfortunately, most seller’s conveyancing lawyers, in the interest of self preservation, refuse to complete Part II of the Sellers Property Information Form.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

FCA AML Audit: The SRA Is Out, the FCA Is In

By
For years, law firms prepared for AML scrutiny with one regulator in mind: the SRA. That era is over. The UK Government has confirmed a fundamental shift in supervision. AML and counter-terrorist financing oversight is moving from the SRA to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). This is not a cosmetic change. It is a full regulatory reset. If your firm is still thinking in terms of an internal review, an FCA AML audit will feel very different, financially, operationally, and reputationally. What Makes an FCA AML Audit Different The SRA regulates professional standards. The FCA enforces financial crime controls. That distinction matters. An FCA AML audit is not designed to guide or educate. It is designed to assess risk to the financial system and determine whether enforcement action is required. This is precisely why firms can no longer rely on internal reviews alone. An FCA AML audit will expect to see independent challenge, most ...
Post a Comment
Read more

How Often Should Your Firm Conduct an Independent AML Audit?

By
In the world of AML compliance, there is a significant difference between doing your work and proving that your work is effective. Anti-Money Laundering (AML) compliance is no longer a "set it and forget it" task. For firms regulated under the Money Laundering Regulations (MLR 2017), the requirement for an independent AML audit is a critical hurdle. But a common question persists among MLROs and Compliance Officers: How often do we actually need to do this? 1. The Regulatory Starting Point: "When Appropriate" The law (specifically Regulation 21 of the MLR 2017) states that a relevant person must establish an independent audit function "where appropriate, with regard to the size and nature of its business." While the legislation doesn’t give a hard calendar date, the consensus among regulators—including the SRA and the Legal Sector Affinity Group (LSAG)—is that for most firms, an audit should be conducted at least every 2 yea...
Post a Comment
Read more

Argie Bargie over Home Information Packs

By
In response to a question from Conservative MP David Amess on what methodology would be used to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the Home Information Pack programme, Communities and Local Government Minister Ian Austin was involved in heated argument. The wording of the debate ( reported in Hansard ) makes interesting reading, so I thought I would share it with you : Mr. David Amess (Southend, West) (Con): What methodology his Department plans to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the home information pack programme; and if he will make a statement. Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): What methodology his Department plans to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the home information pack programme; and if he will make a statement. Mr. David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): What methodology his Department plans to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the home information pack programme; and if he will make a statement. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local...
Post a Comment
Read more