legal action? historical subsidence house sold without declaring

[imiami]

My friends bought a house and paid building level 3 survey, but survey didn't find any problem, the ad on rightmove didn't mention any histoircal subsidence, after a few months they moved in, they heard from neighbour the house had subsidence more than 25 years ago.
Then they searched the files from the vendor, they realized there is a structual engineer report 20 years ago, the 2nd page mentioned the subsidence, and the conclusion is the movement should not happend again. It seemed the house is ok, you might not id the repaired cracks around the house.
The vendor didn't declare to property agence when they were selling it, and vendor only mentioned the tree root removal, the tricky action is the vendor provided the structual engineer report, as the vendor want to gamble nobody read the 2nd page.
I trust this is a calculated covering for gain better value, which is total unfair.
If they take the vendor to court, how about winning rate?
I think the fairness, the vendor refund 10% the selling price. and the survey should pay some as well, the solicitor of buyer should find the problem as well.
Thanks

Or is it a case of 'I don't care about all of that proper stuff I just want to wallpaper'

But it’s not a problem.

Why on earth would it be on the Rightmove ad? That's absurd. You don't put all details of structural stuff on a n ad

The vendors provided the report and the buyers failed to read it. That's kind of it. Not sure where the refund comes in !

There is no negligence. They were provided the report. Just didn’t bother reading it.

Did they explicitly lie, i.e. was there a question about historic subsidence which they answered No when it should have been Yes?
If so, I think it is worth pursuing, initially through the solicitor who handled the purchase.
If there was no dishonesty and the historic issue was disclosed (but not read), I don't believe there is any case to make a claim.

Your friends will have to sue themselves for not reading the paperwork...

The buyer survey told the house has no problem with some crack visible, the the vendor filled the form ta6 answered the question no subsidence ever, but at last few days they provided bulk docs including the construction engineer report, the survey has been done 3 months ago before the buyer got all documents from vendor, actually all the documents except the 2nd page of the report had been read properly, as the buyer thought the survey had been done and paid level 3 building survey, so didn't bother the report, it sounds very stupid mistake. But happened.

But it’s not going to happen again?

I will not repeat what I think of surveyors here - however, if the house hasn't moved in 20 years, why would it do so now and even if it did, likely to be a different issue. As long as you can get insurance for subsidence then all good. Only comeback if you've been put in a poor situation by the lack of the information, if not, then all good.

Does the structural engineer's report actually state there was subsidence or does it state movement? Just because the neighbour said subsidence doesn't mean that was what the movement was and this might be why the solicitor doing the conveyancing didn't flag anything. The fact nothing has changed in the ensuing 20 years suggests there is no issue.

You've said "structural engineer" and "construction engineer" as the author of the same report so I'm wondering if the terminology used is correct.

Many older properties will show some signs of historic movement, but this is not a cause for concern.

If it's the old TA6, it doesn't ask about subsidence.

The new one (that only a few of the cheap&cheerful conveyancers (NOT solicitors)) are using might do, but the reason we aren't all using it is because the questions are really badly designed.

The rule is Buyer Beware - they didn't have to disclose the 20 year old survey, but did.

There is no loss, so there is no claim.

They can take it up with their solicitor and conveyancer, they didn't read the 2nd page which is their fault.

...the vendor provided the structual engineer report, as the vendor want to gamble nobody read the 2nd page.

Huh? They provided a report that included the information. That information happened to be on page 2. What possible reason do you have to claim the vendor was gambling anything?

I trust this is a calculated covering for gain better value, which is total unfair....
Again what are you taking about? They provided information. What is possibly calculated here? What 'calculated covering'?

You have leapt in accusing them of all manner of deception when what they have done is actually provided all the information.
Page TWO??? You make it sound like they restructured a report and hid something important in small print on page 57.

Get a grip. No one is pulling a fast one here.