The seller has answered “No” to the Japanese knotweed question. Does the Report on Title simply repeat the answer, or explain what the buyer can reasonably take from it?
The distinction matters. Reporting that the seller denies the property is affected is different from confirming that somebody suitably qualified has inspected it and found no knotweed.
Equally, warning the buyer about the limits of the answer should not suggest that the seller’s representation has no legal significance.
Lexsure’s e-ROT scenario on a seller answering “No” to Japanese knotweed addresses this particular reporting situation. For conveyancers, it is a useful prompt to examine whether standard wording accurately distinguishes the seller’s reply, the available evidence and any investigation still required.
Report the answer without adopting it as a verified fact
A Report on Title should make the source of information clear.
“The seller has answered ‘No’ to the Japanese knotweed question” attributes the statement to the seller. “The property is free from Japanese knotweed” can convey a much broader assurance.
If the firm has not obtained evidence supporting that broader conclusion, the wording should not imply otherwise.
This is not a reason to disregard the seller’s answer. It is a reason to describe precisely what has been received and what the firm has established.
A representation is different from an expert assessment
The Law Society’s TA6 explanatory notes state that buyers can rely on the information sellers provide. They also recognise that sellers may lack technical knowledge and may not know about matters arising before their ownership.
The notes require truthful and accurate answers supported by a reasonable basis. They separately encourage buyers to investigate the property’s physical condition through a survey.
A reporting paragraph should preserve both points:
- The answer is a representation made by the seller and may have legal significance.
- The answer is not, by itself, a specialist inspection or confirmation that knotweed is absent.
An unqualified statement that the buyer “cannot rely on the seller’s answer” risks obscuring that distinction. Explain the limit of the assurance rather than dismissing the representation.
Check the actual form and any qualifications
Before reporting the answer, read the form used on the transaction, its accompanying notes and any additional explanation.
Do not assume that a remembered question number, wording or response from another file matches the documents in front of you.
Consider whether the answer has been qualified elsewhere, whether supporting documents have been supplied and whether later correspondence changes the position.
A short entry in the Report on Title should not remove a qualification that was material to understanding the original reply.
Make the professional roles understandable
The buyer may not appreciate who has checked what.
The conveyancer examines the legal documents and information received, raises appropriate enquiries and considers the advice and lender requirements arising from them. The conveyancer does not ordinarily inspect the garden or identify plants.
A surveyor’s work depends on the agreed scope and the circumstances of the inspection. A mortgage valuation should not be presented as a survey commissioned for the buyer’s benefit.
Where identification or assessment requires specialist input, the report should explain that need and the question the specialist is being asked to address.
The useful explanation is specific: what has been inspected, what remains unconfirmed and what the buyer should do next.
A generic warning does not resolve conflicting evidence
Illustrative example: the seller answers “No”, but the buyer supplies a survey referring to suspected Japanese knotweed near the rear boundary.
A standard paragraph explaining that sellers are not plant experts does not resolve that discrepancy. Nor should the report repeat the negative answer without mentioning the survey concern.
The file should establish what further enquiry or specialist assessment is appropriate, what information has been requested and whether anything remains outstanding before exchange.
The buyer should receive an explanation of the actual position, rather than two inconsistent documents and a general warning left for them to reconcile.
For the wider reporting questions where knotweed is known or suspected, see our guide to what a conveyancer should tell a buyer about Japanese knotweed.
A negative answer does not automatically require a specialist survey
The reporting process should remain proportionate to the transaction and the information available.
A seller’s “No” answer alone should not be described as creating a universal requirement for every buyer to commission a specialist knotweed survey.
However, where there is a concern, the advice should identify it clearly. Relevant information might include a survey observation, documents suggesting earlier treatment or information supplied by the buyer about adjoining land.
A useful report explains why further investigation is recommended in that particular case and what uncertainty it is intended to address.
Keep any lender decision separate from the buyer’s decision
If information concerning knotweed emerges, consider the particular lender’s applicable instructions alongside the mortgage offer and case-specific correspondence.
The seller’s original answer cannot substitute for a report or approval required by those instructions. The borrower’s willingness to proceed cannot supply the lender’s authority either.
Equally, lender acceptance does not remove the need to explain material implications to the buyer.
Record separately what was reported, what the lender decided and what advice the purchaser received. For historical investigations, our article on Japanese knotweed and historical lender requirements explains why the relevant date matters.
Explain what the buyer needs to decide
A warning has limited practical value if it leaves the buyer unsure whether action is required.
Depending on the circumstances, the Report on Title should make clear:
- What the seller has stated and whether the answer is qualified.
- Whether the firm has received any inspection or specialist evidence.
- Whether other information raises a concern or contradiction.
- What further investigation has been recommended and why.
- What remains outstanding before the proposed transaction step.
If the buyer elects not to obtain recommended advice, record the recommendation, the explanation given and the resulting instructions. A signed acknowledgement does not resolve an outstanding lender requirement or replace advice that still needs to be given.
Review archived wording before using it
The e-ROT scenario includes an extract from historical Report on Title material dated 2018. The page expressly identifies it as archived wording, rather than a current precedent to copy into a live report.
That distinction is particularly relevant where older wording uses a broad warning about reliance. Review whether the paragraph accurately explains the difference between relying on a seller’s representation and treating it as expert verification.
Check any proposed wording against the current transaction documents, professional guidance and the firm’s actual investigation. Do not describe a paragraph as current merely because it remains saved in the precedent bank.
The scenario page provides access to its current-wording options. Firms reviewing their wider reporting material can also explore the e-ROT Report on Title Notification Service, assessing and adapting relevant updates before use.
If knotweed is discovered after completion
The original reply, enquiries, survey information and Report on Title may all become important evidence.
Discovery after purchase does not itself establish that the seller misrepresented the position, that a survey was inadequate or that the conveyancer failed to advise properly. Those are separate questions requiring investigation.
Our article No Japanese Knotweed, Said the Seller. The Garden Told a Different Story examines the separate misrepresentation angle.
Owners concerned about what happened during their purchase can visit When I Bought’s Japanese knotweed page to explore which earlier records and advice may matter.
Does your Report on Title explain the seller’s “No” accurately?
Review Lexsure’s e-ROT scenario addressing a negative Japanese knotweed reply and follow its professional options for current Report on Title wording.
Use the review to distinguish the seller’s representation, the evidence available and any investigation or advice still required on your file.
Review the e-ROT scenario and wording options →
Archived extracts are not current precedents. Review the available wording and adapt it to the transaction, evidence and advice required.
This article concerns conveyancing in England and Wales. The example is illustrative. It provides general information and does not replace legal, surveying or specialist advice on an individual property.