TODAY'S moral dilemma: you are a home owner whose life has been made miserable by nuisance neighbours. The only means of escape is to sell your house.

So, do you tell prospective buyers about the nightmare next door, and scupper any chance of a sale and a new life? Or do you lie and save yourself?

The couple selling their York home to Tony Pemberton chose to dissemble.

To be fair, Mr and Mrs Colin King's neighbour was much more than a nuisance. Complaints against her household catalogued every form of anti-social behaviour.

Naturally keen to see the back of the troublemakers, the Kings appeared as witnesses against them at the eviction hearing.

Yet they failed to mention these events on an official document relating to their house sale. "Do you know of any dispute about this or any neighbouring property?" it asked. Mr and Mrs King ticked the "no" box.

Mr Pemberton had to find out the hard way about his new neighbours. Soon after he bought the house their behaviour forced him off work with stress.

Having successfully sued the Kings for failing to warn him, Mr Pemberton says he bears no ill-feelings towards them. Those who have endured life with a horror neighbour will sympathise with their convenient amnesia - although they could have left the form blank.

This case highlights the legal and moral minefield surrounding neighbourhood disputes. A property's value can plummet because of the actions of a neighbour, over whom the homeowner has no control.

The homebuyer, meanwhile, undertakes independent surveys into the structural and legal status of a property, but has no official method of assessing the neighbours.

Mr Pemberton's court success shows that a vendor cannot lie with impunity. It is also a reminder that home buyers should not rely on the seller's word, and must do all they can to check out their potential neighbours before measuring up the curtains.

TODAY'S moral dilemma: you are a home owner whose life has been made miserable by nuisance neighbours. The only means of escape is to sell your house.

So, do you tell prospective buyers about the nightmare next door, and scupper any chance of a sale and a new life? Or do you lie and save yourself?

The couple selling their York home to Tony Pemberton chose to dissemble.

To be fair, Mr and Mrs Colin King's neighbour was much more than a nuisance. Complaints against her household catalogued every form of anti-social behaviour.

Naturally keen to see the back of the troublemakers, the Kings appeared as witnesses against them at the eviction hearing.

Yet they failed to mention these events on an official document relating to their house sale. "Do you know of any dispute about this or any neighbouring property?" it asked. Mr and Mrs King ticked the "no" box.

Mr Pemberton had to find out the hard way about his new neighbours. Soon after he bought the house their behaviour forced him off work with stress.

Having successfully sued the Kings for failing to warn him, Mr Pemberton says he bears no ill-feelings towards them. Those who have endured life with a horror neighbour will sympathise with their convenient amnesia - although they could have left the form blank.

This case highlights the legal and moral minefield surrounding neighbourhood disputes. A property's value can plummet because of the actions of a neighbour, over whom the homeowner has no control.

The homebuyer, meanwhile, undertakes independent surveys into the structural and legal status of a property, but has no official method of assessing the neighbours.

Mr Pemberton's court success shows that a vendor cannot lie with impunity. It is also a reminder that home buyers should not rely on the seller's word, and must do all they can to check out their potential neighbours before measuring up the curtains.

Updated: 10:44 Monday, February 11, 2002