Cases - Lewin v Barratt Homes Ltd
Record details
- Name
- Lewin v Barratt Homes Ltd
- Date
- [2000]
- Citation
- 1 EGLR 77
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Estate agency - Property Misdescriptions Act 1991
- Summary
-
Barratt Homes were prosecuted under the 1991 Act for misleading prospective purchasers, in the course of a property development business, about the external design of homes they were building.
At a site office, 2 purchasers were shown a picture of a house type known as a 'Maidstone' which was being offered for sale. They were also invited to look at, and did visit, a show house of the same design. At this time Barratt knew that, for planning reasons, they could not build houses of this type.
Beneath the picture in the site office there appeared in writing an 'IMPORTANT NOTICE' that pointed out that the visual depictions could not be relied upon as an accurate description. At the bottom of the picture was a sticker which stated in bold capital letters: 'DETAILS OF THIS PROPERTY HAVE BEEN AMENDED. PLEASE REFER TO SITE NEGOTIATOR FOR DETAILS'. On the office wall was a framed A4 document headed 'IMPORTANT NOTICE' that warned that there might be a difference between the accommodation depicted in Barratt's literature and that on offer in particular developments. The complainant did not recall anything being brought to his attention which would indicate that the property being built for him would in any way be different from the display pictures or the show house. The houses that were eventually built for the purchasers were of a different external design, so the purchasers complained to the trading standards office. Barratt claimed that there was no misdescription because of the effect of various notices in the site office. This defence failed on the facts, but the magistrates dismissed the charges on the ground that Barratt's information amounted to promises as to the future and not statements of existing fact. The trading standards officer appealed.
The divisional court held that the magistrates were wrong:
'It seems quite obvious that by showing prospective purchasers pictures of a Maidstone design and the show house itself, the respondent was stating that that was how it proposed to build the houses. That, in other words, was its present intention ...'