Luxury mansion or nightmare? Raising my first moth-related enquiry
It’s not often that I find myself raising an enquiry about something as unusual as moth-infestation. But when I was reviewing my clients' survey report on the purchase of their property, I came across a section referring to moth damage that really caught my eye. My mind quickly raced to the Notting Hill case.
The Notting Hill case: what went wrong?
The case involved Iya Patarkatsishvili (a billionaire heiress) and her husband, Dr. Yevhen Hunyak (the claimants), who purchased a luxurious Notting Hill mansion for £32.5m in May 2019.
Shortly after moving in, they discovered a severe moth infestation, which was traced to the wool insulation within the property.
This infestation caused significant damage to their belongings (including expensive clothes) and raised serious concerns about health risks. The couple claimed that they were having to kill over 100 moths a day. Moths would fly into their faces and, worse, fall into wine glasses. So, it doesn’t come as a surprise that they sought recission of the sale contract.
Following a legal battle, a judgment was given on 10 February 2025 and the High Court ruled in their favour. They were entitled to rescind the sale contract after proving that the sellers had failed to disclose a previous infestation that had been heavily treated. The judge found that the sellers had made a misrepresentation, and the buyers were justified in seeking the return of the purchase money and other purchase costs.
Fraudulent misrepresentation
The key legal issue here was misrepresentation. The sellers had been asked if the property had been affected by vermin infestation. They replied evasively; without mentioning that moths had been seen and treated previously, and there was even a written report about an ‘infestation’.
This non-disclosure was deemed to be a form of fraudulent misrepresentation, as the sellers had a duty to disclose any significant issues with the property, especially those that could affect its value or condition.
Reflecting on this case, I can only hope that my clients never find themselves in a similar situation. However, the case provides valuable reminder of the importance of raising specific questions and ensuring full transparency when replying during property transactions.
It is not ok to say to yourself: ‘vermin must mean rats, not moths; so, I don’t need to mention them’. If in doubt whether something should be disclosed; ask your solicitor.
It’s crucial for solicitors to be proactive when it comes to raising enquiries. Things to ponder:
- Raising the right enquiry: in property transactions, solicitors should avoid asking questions about condition or structure (which are not legal points) but they should ask specific questions at the direction of their buying client or if signposted by the surveyor’s report. This includes not only asking about documents for structural changes, or damp, and electrical systems, but also about pests and environmental factors. In my clients' case, I made sure to include questions about moth infestations, as well as any other pests or problems that might affect the property’s integrity.
- Preventing future disputes: raising a clear, detailed enquiry about pests ensures that, if there are issues, they will be documented and addressed before the sale is finalised. The goal is to prevent any surprises after the purchase. This will also protect my clients from the risk of being misled or having an issue arise later, which could lead to expensive legal action or, worse, the need to rescind the contract.
What sellers should consider
It’s also important for sellers to understand the risks associated with non-disclosure. The Notting Hill case offers a crucial lesson for sellers, particularly in relation to completing protocol forms and responding to property enquiries during the sale process. Sellers should consider:
- Honest disclosure: sellers have a legal duty to disclose material facts about a property that could influence the buyer’s decision. If there is a pest infestation or similar issue, it’s essential for the seller to disclose it accurately. Failure to do so may result in a misrepresentation claim. The Notting Hill case made it clear that non-disclosure of a significant problem like a moth infestation can lead to severe legal consequences, including the rescinding of the sale and compensation for damages. Sellers should be upfront about any pest issues, past infestations, or potential environmental hazards.
- Accurate responses to enquiries: another key lesson from the Notting Hill case was the importance of accurately completing property information forms. Sellers should review these forms carefully and ensure that everything is answered truthfully. If a buyer asks about pests, the answer must be based on facts - whether that’s confirming the absence of pests or providing full disclosure about any known issues.
Conclusion
Raising my first moth-related enquiry was an eye-opening experience, particularly in light of the Notting Hill case.
As solicitors, it’s our job to ensure that our clients are protected by raising the right enquiries, responding thoroughly, and making sure that full and honest disclosure is made at every stage of the transaction. And for anyone involved in property deals, it's clear that even a little pest problem can have big legal consequences.