Lancashire County Council v Buchanan

For an enforcement officer to have reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence under the Property Misdescriptions Act, suspicion must be assessed by reference to the information actually possessed and to what a reasonable person with knowledge of the law would infer. An estate agent’s particulars ordinarily describe the property offered for sale, not the nature or quality of the vendor’s title, particularly where they are expressed to be subject to contract. A possible inability to convey good title may nevertheless make particulars misleading in an appropriate case. Mere knowledge of a title dispute is insufficient without inquiry into its nature, especially where substantial evidence supports the vendor’s possession and ability to convey the property.

Lancashire County Council appealed by way of case stated from the decision of District Judge Ward in the Accrington Magistrates’ Court. The respondent, an estate agent and solicitor, had marketed a property including a side garden. The trading standards officer suspected that the particulars were misleading because the vendor’s title to the garden was disputed and sought documents under Schedule 3 to the Property Misdescriptions Act. The District Judge concluded that there were no reasonable grounds for suspicion. The central issue was whether, on the information actually available to the officer, a reasonable person with knowledge of the law could suspect that the particulars were misleading.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The District Judge was correct to conclude that the respondent was not guilty because there were no reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence.
2. Under section 1 of the Property Misdescriptions Act, the relevant question was whether a reasonable person with knowledge of the law, possessing the information actually available to the officer, would have suspected that the particulars were misleading. The test was supported by Hussain v Chong Fook Cam and Dallison v Caffrey.
3. The particulars described the property which the vendor offered for sale. They did not represent the nature or quality of the vendor’s title. A reasonable purchaser would understand that title issues would be addressed during conveyancing, particularly since the particulars were subject to contract and the statutory definition of estate agency business excluded conveyancing services.
4. This did not mean that particulars could never be misleading where the vendor could not convey good title. However, the officer had to assess the available information properly. Knowledge that a local authority disputed registration, without inquiry into the nature of the dispute, did not provide reasonable grounds for suspicion when the officer accepted substantial evidence of long possession.
5. The proposed argument concerning adverse possession and the Human Rights Act had not been raised below and rested on theoretical possibilities unsupported by evidence. The reasoning in Beaulane Properties Ltd v Palmer was inconsistent with the law as declared in Pye (Oxford) Ltd and another v United Kingdom. The Council was ordered to pay the costs.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the Council’s appeal by way of case stated from the decision of District Judge Ward in the Accrington Magistrates’ Court.