Seller didn't disclose "flood" when we bought 4 years ago

[MultiColouredFrog]

Hi fellow Mumsnetters, I wonder if one of you kind people can help me.

We bought our house, which is now 16 years old, 4 years ago. When chatting to the neighbours the other day they happened to mention that when the houses were first built, the surface water drainage was not done properly and our house "flooded" during very heavy rain. It sounds like this was put right under NHBC but the seller did not disclose this on the TA6 form, ticking "no" to the question about the property ever flooding.

I understand that it wasn't flooding in the sense of a river bursting its banks, but from what I've read it should still have been disclosed.

I am now anxious that we are aware of it and will therefore need to disclose it when we eventually come to sell. And also, what about insurance? We've obviously always denied any history of flooding because we weren't aware. But if we ever need to make a claim then it will probably come to light.

If you were in this position, would you be worried? And would you go after the sellers after 4 years have passed (with no sign of further drainage problems during that time)?

Just to add, the seller lived here from new so it wouldn't have been before their time.

You need to let your insurance know now that you do know so that it doesn't come back on you

Can you speak to the solicitor who handled the sale and ask for advice? This must have happened before.
Maybe original seller didn't think it was in the same category of flooding as a burst river bank since it was a building fault which was corrected.

I don't know if I'd be particularly worried but I would be seeking advice on this - probably from the solicitor who handled all the conveyancing if possible. And this with a view to informing your insurance company because you absolutely don't want your insurance invalidated on the rare chance it happens again

And yes, good point. Was it caused by a building fault then put right?

I do think that your insurance would be okay since you haven't lied - it would be unfair for insurance companies to expect people to know absolutely everything about their house even prior to when they owned it. Especially if you still have paperwork with the original owner's declaration.

If the fault has been corrected by the builder it probably didn't go through insurance. Therefore whilst it flooded it won't in theory happen again due to the correction ? Does your property show on the flood maps as in an area at risk of surface water flooding ? If not then I wouldn't worry. Usually insurance companies can see if there is a historic flood claim.

www.getthedata.com/flood-map-by-postcode
Check data on here.

Thanks for the responses. Yes it was definitely a building fault and has been corrected. There should have been a drain in place and there wasn't, but now there is. When we had the searches done when we bought the house the flood risk came back as the lowest category. So hopefully now it's been corrected it won't happen again!

There wouldn’t be any recourse to the seller, the legal standpoint in this country is ‘buyer beware’, and there have been numerous cases where the purchaser has gone after the seller for incorrect information and they have ruled in favour of the seller, as the buyer in the eyes of the law should have done their own due diligence.

For your insurance, I’d imagine if your PIF says no flooding, that you’ve acted reasonably - check your policy wording but most of them say ‘to your knowledge’.

They wouldn’t know that your neighbour has verbally mentioned it to you!

Thank you @StarJumpsandaHalf - our postcode is a "no flood risk" area, nearest flood risk 4km away! :)

I would simply forget the discussion with the neighbour and carry on as before.

There wouldn’t be any recourse to the seller, the legal standpoint in this country is ‘buyer beware’, and there have been numerous cases where the purchaser has gone after the seller for incorrect information and they have ruled in favour of the seller, as the buyer in the eyes of the law should have done their own due diligence.

As long as the seller didn't lie in the process. No amount of due diligence is protection against deliberate fraud. As the HP/Autonomy court case (for billions) is currently testing ....

There wouldn’t be any recourse to the seller, the legal standpoint in this country is ‘buyer beware’, and there have been numerous cases where the purchaser has gone after the seller for incorrect information and they have ruled in favour of the seller

Simply not true. There have been some cases where the courts have ruled in favour of the seller, e.g. when the seller's answers were not misrepresentations. However, there have also been cases when the courts have ruled in favour of the buyer and awarded large sums of money in compensation when the seller has knowingly made incorrect statements on the SPIF. Having said that, I doubt the OP would face any problems if she said no to the flooding question on the SPIF in this particular case.