Cases - Enfield London Borough Council v Castles Estate Agents Ltd
Record details
- Name
- Enfield London Borough Council v Castles Estate Agents Ltd
- Date
- [1996]
- Citation
- 2 EGLR 21
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Estate agency - Property Misdescriptions Act 1991
- Summary
-
The defendants were employed to market a property. This consisted of a 4-bedroomed semi-detached house with a separate single-storey building, which had been built within the curtilage of the main building. The single-storey building had windows, a front door and a porch, and was laid out as a 1-bedroomed bungalow. It was set within its own grounds with a low wall dividing it from the main dwelling and the road. A driveway led from the road. A senior negotiator of the defendants inspected the property and asked the vendors if planning permission had been granted for the 'bungalow'. He was told that it had, and so he entered 'perm dev' on his instruction sheet. In fact the building had no planning permission to be used as a 1-bedroom bungalow. Subsequently the negotiator sent the property particulars, which referred to a 1-bedroom bungalow, to the vendors, together with a Certificate of Confirmation, asking them to sign and return the certificate verifying the accuracy of the information. They were informed that marketing could not commence until this was done. The vendors never returned the certificate, despite a telephone reminder. Enfield Borough Council took proceedings against the defendants for describing the building as a bungalow when it could not be used as a dwelling and the magistrates dismissed the case on the ground that the defendants had taken all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence.
Enfield BC appealed and the Divisional Court held that, on the evidence, the magistrates were entitled to find the statutory defence of due diligence proved. The case concerned a bungalow built 30 or 40 years before which appeared to have been occupied previously, and the court took the view that it would not be difficult to imagine an experienced agent not even asking the vendor whether it had been built with planning permission. In these circumstances, there would be no steps which would have been reasonable to take to avoid committing the offence and due diligence would have required no further action. It would have been different if the agent had seen 'a newly completed and ugly extension tacked on to the house in a conservation area'. As to the issue of reliance on the vendor's statement, the court found that the agent thought it prudent to ask and the reply removed any small doubt he might have had. He was not simply relying on what the vendor said, but on his own assessment of the situation supported, to a small extent, by the vendor. If, on the other hand, the agent had real doubt, the vendor's answer would not have been sufficient to rely upon.