Never say never

“i did not even get up this morning!”

House seller who checked “no knotweed” on property disclosure form ordered to pay £200,000

I wouldn’t know Japanese knotweed if it climbed up my leg and bit me, but apparently it’s a big deal in England, as this unhappy litigant has learned.

An accountant says he has suffered a 'miscarriage of justice' after being sued by the buyer of his £700,000 home when Japanese knotweed was found growing beside a garden shed.

Jeremy Henderson fears he will now have to sell his new house to pay the £200,000 court bill due to furniture designer Jonathan Downing, 30, who bought the three-bedroom property in affluent Prince George's Avenue, Raynes Park, south-west London.

Mr Downing launched a legal battle when he discovered knotweed canes - an invasive species, notorious for its propensity to spread and cause damage to building structures - behind a large St John's wort bush.

It was ruled that Mr Henderson made a misrepresentation when he specifically stated in sales forms that there was 'no' knotweed affecting the property - when he could have answered 'yes' or 'not known'.

Mr Henderson must now pay £32,000 damages and Mr Downing's lawyers bills of up to £95,000, as well as his own costs, estimated at almost £100,000

The court heard that Mr Henderson specifically stated in sales forms that there was 'no' knotweed affecting the property.

Tom Carter, Mr Downing's barrister said: 'The defendant could have ticked 'Yes', 'Not Known' or 'No' – by ticking 'No', the defendant chose to positively assert there was no knotweed at the property and thereby made a misrepresentation.'

Mr Henderson told MailOnline: 'It was a genuine, honest answer because as far as I was concerned there wasn't any knotweed. My advice to anybody selling their home in the future is to tick 'not known.'

Connecticut’s version of a property disclosure form gives sellers the option of paying the buyer $300 instead of providing one, and that’s often a wise approach. But if you do complete such a form, (and why would you?) “not known” is your friend, while answering “no” is just inviting trouble. Which is not to say that you should hide defects — that’s fraud, and you’d be subjecting yourself to every bad thing — but otherwise, the Sergeant Schultz approach is highly recommended.