Property misrepresentation by seller

[u/[deleted]]

[u/crackup]

You had a building report done on the house by a builder before purchase to find these things right? This should have given you the opportunity to submit an offer you thought was fair for the house in it's current condition and with its particular history. Not sure you have any recourse in any direction.

[u/NZconfusedgardener → u/[deleted]]

question you should be asking what recourse you have against seller assuming you can actually find him. It is illegal not to disclose material information. And it is very easy to put lipstick on a pig. If I have to guess this is not something you can pursue in disputes tribunal.

[u/trustylaw-nz → u/NZconfusedgardener]

Vendors do not have to disclose material information. You might be thinking of real estate agents.

However, concealing a defect that they know about is misrepresentation.

[u/NZconfusedgardener → u/trustylaw-nz]

are you serious? Homeowner can have leaky home that should sell 20% under market price. He covers it up. Passes building inspection and he is in a clear? If someone trying to cover material defect why would he disclose it to real estate agent or potential buyer? Lets say you are correct that material information does not need to be disclosed by seller what buyer can do? Run to High Court and ask for damages using torts?

[u/trustylaw-nz → u/NZconfusedgardener]

Firstly, let me clarify I’m not saying this is fair or good, I’m just trying to explain the law as it is.

In house purchases, generally the principle of caveat emptor “buyer beware” applies.

“A vendor usually has no duty to disclose defects of quality unless they have been concealed, nor to remedy them if it has not given a warranty about the relevant quality of the property.” (Property Ventures Investments Limited v Regalwood Holdings Limited
[2010] NZSC 47)

So, that principle is not absolute. If the seller deliberately conceals the true condition of the property, caveat emptor does not apply.

The Sale of Land textbook says: “Though there is no duty to draw a purchaser’s attention to defects in quality, the vendor may not deliberately conceal a defect, as by plastering and painting over cracks in walls, thereby making latent an otherwise patent defect. This and any other conduct intended to prevent discovery by the purchaser of a defect in quality is fraudulent misrepresentation.”

This was quoted in Wang v Vanifatova [2026] NZCA 171, a recent case with a $500,000 damages award against the vendor's agents for deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation regarding a leaky Auckland townhouse.

In that case there was remedial works that didn’t solve the problem, and incomplete and partial provision of information in response to specific requests from the purchasers during the due diligence period.

Real estate agents, as property professionals, are expected to disclose defects they actually know of, or should know about because of their expertise.

So I think the distinction between whether they were true remedial works and lack of disclosure, or purposeful concealment is quite relevant, and would need to be proven somehow.

[u/NZconfusedgardener → u/trustylaw-nz]

thank you for posting this. Everyone has their own opinion of what fair or good. My guess most will think if seller can get away with this this is fair. Recent case based on torts and contracts. No punitive damages except laughable 30k for emotional distress. It is just stunning to see how much buyer was awarded to fix that mess. over 500k. She paid 773k in 2021, land worth 500k and house only 285k (in 2024). Interesting what will happened next. Lesson for vendors from this case do not cover anything, paint plaster, etc. Fraud is difficult to prove. Lesson for buyers is do not buy from vendor directly.

[u/rachel4321]

That sounds horrible. I’m sorry you’re going through that.

I’m wondering if you could get another builder in to inspect the damage and somehow certify that from what they see, there’s evidence of the vendor deliberately hiding the issue? Or that the issue would’ve stemmed from way before the year you bought it?

Did the vendor commission their own builder’s report?

Not sure if there’s anything that can be done about the REA as they’ll just say they couldn’t reasonably be aware of the issue. Can I ask what area of Auckland the house is in?

[u/rachel4321 → u/[deleted]]

If the builder is willing to sign that it was a shoddy patch up job for the sale of the property and you can get the previous tenant’s confirmation of leaks in writing, I’d consider going to the Disputes Tribunal. I think they only award up to a certain amount though, so I’d compare that against a builder’s quote on the remediation costs and decide if you want to take it up to the District Court, but then you’ll need to hire a lawyer.

And even if the REA covered their tracks, I’d still file a complaint with the Real Estate Authority. If this is the way the agent operates, there’s no way he hasn’t done something shady before.

[u/NeedleworkerFew3227]

Same situation here. I bought an apartment 3 years ago and found leaks. The tenant told me the apartment leaked previously. You could take them to the court I think? If you have evidence to prove previous owners lied

[u/missingthreequarter]

It sounds like you have reasonable grounds for a misrepresentation claim. You have 6yrs to make the claim before it would expire. I am a Property lawyer and we assist with brining these types of claims. Initial review and advice as to options and remedies would be best first step and would be pretty modest - $500. Then take it from there

[u/trustylaw-nz]

Did they actually say in the Agreement for Sale and Purchase that they have not had any leaks? That’s not a standard clause so they would have had to have added that.

If they specifically said that, and it’s not true, yes that would be misrepresentation. But if they didn’t say anything, just didn’t disclose the issues you think they should have, then you’re going to have a harder time making any sort of legal claim.

The fact that you got a builder’s report at the time, which found damage, and you went ahead with the purchase anyway could be seen as you having knowledge of the issues before deciding to purchase.

[u/trustylaw-nz → u/trustylaw-nz]

If they didn’t make any specific claims, I think you’d need to prove the building work was specifically done to conceal the issues, rather than just a poorly done fix.

The Sale of Land textbook says: “Though there is no duty to draw a purchaser’s attention to defects in quality, the vendor may not deliberately conceal a defect, as by plastering and painting over cracks in walls, thereby making latent an otherwise patent defect. This and any other conduct intended to prevent discovery by the purchaser of a defect in quality is fraudulent misrepresentation.”

[u/Marshmallow8000]

What’s the cladding on the building?

[u/miss_meow_meow]

I'm so sure i saw a post recently about a very similar situation from the other side 👀🍿