I bought a new house a few months ago and recently heard a noise in the loft. Upon inspection, I noticed some rat droppings.

I asked my neighbours if they'd heard or seen anything to do with this, which they hadn't. 

However, one did say a previous occupier of my house had asked a similar question to mine. 

During the sale, I never asked the seller anything with regards to vermin.  

They never mentioned it on the TA6 form and it didn't come up in the property survey. 

Can I claim redress against the previous owner for the costs incurred in curing this problem, or is it a case of buyer beware? If I can claim, what would the procedure be?

Jane Denton, of This is Money, replies: Estimates about the number of rats across Britain vary, but it is safe to say there are millions of them. 

Brown rats are common and often found around homes, gardens and in urban areas. They can grow to between 15 to 27 centimetres, with tails nearly as long again. 

Rodents are prolific breeders and, according to the RSPCA, can produce anything from 15 to 100 young a year. Brown rats breed throughout the year.

Sellers are legally obliged to provide accurate information about their property to buyers. 

Documents like the TA6 form are completed by the seller and designed to give the buyer important information on the property. 

If the seller provides incorrect or incomplete information, the buyer may, in some cases, be able to make a claim for compensation against the seller, or, if at an earlier stage, refuse to complete the purchase. 

When completing the TA6 form, sellers aren't expected to have legal or technical knowledge, or knowledge of things that happened before they owned the property. 

You have said that the seller made no mention of rats during the conveyancing process, yet have now found them in your loft. You did not make pre-contract enquiries about vermin at the property. 

It is not clear whether the seller knew or didn't know about the rats, and that distinction is significant. 

I have asked two solicitors for their thoughts on whether or not you are in a position to take action against the seller.  

James Naylor, a partner at Naylor Solicitors, says: The discovery of droppings in a newly purchased property is concerning. 

But does the post-completion discovery of vermin give rise to a legal claim? A recent High Court decision provides some guidance.

In a 2025 case, the buyers of a £32.5million Notting Hill mansion thought they were getting a palace rather than a lepidopterist's paradise. 

Post-completion, they discovered a moth infestation. 

Suspecting the seller had swept the problem under the presumably moth-eaten rug, the buyers scrutinised the seller's responses to pre-contract enquiries. 

The seller had expressly stated that there were no vermin problems. 

Therefore, the court decided that the buyers were entitled to rely on the seller's representations and found that the seller had misrepresented material facts. As a result, the buyers were entitled to tear up the contract.

While the facts of the moth infestation case are superficially similar, there are important distinctions. 

In the moths case, the buyers made direct and specific enquiries regarding vermin, and the seller's responses were found to be false considering their actual knowledge.

In the present scenario, no such specific enquiry was made regarding vermin, and there is no evidence that the seller's responses to the TA6 property information form were false.

Furthermore, in the moths case, the court's decision turned on the seller's actual knowledge of a severe infestation and the false nature of their replies to pre-contractual enquiries. 

In the current matter, there is no evidence the seller was aware of a rat problem or that they answered falsely. 

Had a direct question about vermin been posed and the seller denied knowledge, despite being aware, a misrepresentation claim may have been a runner—even if the infestation was not readily apparent.

Additionally, in the current scenario, the pre-purchase survey did not identify any evidence of vermin, and there is no suggestion of surveyor failings. 

The neighbour's recollection of a historic issue is, at best, hearsay and does not necessarily constitute evidence of a current problem or of the seller's knowledge.

The moths case serves as a reminder that whilst the courts will not tolerate false or misleading answers, particularly where the seller is aware of a problem, in the absence of a specific enquiry and evidence of false representations—as in the present facts—the principle of 'buyer beware' may indeed likely prevail. 

And, unless further evidence emerges of the seller's knowledge and dishonesty, a claim for costs is unlikely to have legs. 

Manjinder Kaur Atwal, director of property law at Duncan Lewis Solicitors, says: Unfortunately, your situation is one that many buyers find themselves in: uncovering an unpleasant issue with a property only after completion, with no obvious recourse.

In legal terms, the principle of 'caveat emptor', or buyer beware, applies to most residential property purchases in England and Wales. The onus is generally on the buyer to investigate the condition of the property before agreeing a purchase.

However, it is not the end of the story. There are several angles to explore depending on the facts of your case.

The TA6 property information form, completed by the seller, asks questions about property's condition, including about the existence of pests or infestations.

If the seller answered 'no' to this question and knew that there was or had been a rodent issue in the loft it could amount to misrepresentation.

To bring a claim, you would need to show that the seller knew about a rodent infestation and intentionally failed to disclose it, you relied on their misleading when deciding to buy the property and you suffered a financial loss, such as pest control costs or the value of the property.

The difficulty lies in proving what the seller knew and when. Neighbours may be able to recollect if any previous occupiers mentioned the issue and could help establish whether the problem is long-standing, although might not necessarily show the most recent seller was aware.

If no signs of vermin were mentioned in the survey it would be unlikely you could claim against the surveyor, unless the signs were so obvious that a competent professional should have spotted them. Obviously, rodents can enter a property post-sale, so timing is critical.

To pursue a misrepresentation claim, it is best to start by writing a formal letter before action to the seller outlining your complaint and any losses.

Then you may wish to seek pre-action disclosure requesting relevant information, such as pest control invoices or communications.

If the seller denies knowledge or liability, you could issue a claim in the small claims court, or County Court or High Court for higher sums.

The key to success here is providing solid evidence the seller knowingly concealed a vermin problem, which is not easy.

Keep your receipts and if you believe, you have evidence the seller knew about the issue, consider speaking to a solicitor. 

While frustrating, the cost of dealing with rodent problems usually falls to the buyer unless clear misrepresentation can be shown.