Asbestos Garage - Buyers chasing me for removal costs

Thrugelmir

Goldenyears wrote: »

It's not just garages. Houses built up to the early 1980s are fairly sure to contain asbestos cement somewhere. After 2000 they are fairly sure to be asbestos free.

If this garage claim were to succeed then buyers could also claim the cost of replacing the sofits from vendors !

Spot on.

The survey on behalf of the purchaser would have drawn attention to the construction of the garage.

We have a 1930's built house still with the original roof tiles, which are made of asbestos cement. This was highlighted by our survey, and was not considered an issue with regards to our purchase.

lellow_lorry

As many said...they re trying it on. Cost to remove is about a grand. there are loads of these garages still standing. There is absolutley nothing wrong with them unless damaged, so if they remove it...their choice. Survey Should have picked it up unless all they went for is a valuation survey(then more fool them). Its not for you to have pointed out, and many people are not even aware they are constructed with asbestos.
This will cost them a small fortune and the cost to remove it on top if they try to push this through the court.

tomstickland

What a bizarre case. If they want to remove the shed then that's their problem.

Ignite

You could get legal representation for this through your household insurance legal cover (if you have it). It might be worth looking into this as they will be able to provide you with a solicitor and it might be that the other party are representing themselves. At least this would help settle your mind over potential issues and costs.

johnson293

To answer an earlier point - I did think whether to offer up my address, but felt that in an effort to try and communicate with him before he started making claims through courts, I would allow him to get in touch.

Anyway, another update...

Have received a letter directly from the buyer, which he sent recorded delivery.

He's had the response to my call to his solicitor, and his reply to that is that "the way the shed was left is dangerous and can fall over, risking health and safety."

He is basically explaining that he has had a builder in to check the shed to repair it and been told the shed is unsafe and structurally unstable, and then he was told it was made of asbestos too.

He is claiming I "was supposed to leave the property in a safe condition to live" - but in this he is still referring to the shed, not the actual house.

He is saying if I want to remove the shed myself, I can have full access to do so, otherwise he will need to go with one of his quotes, which he now claims to range from £1200 - £2300 inc vat.

I will reiterate - at no point did he on viewing or his valuer/surveyor question the construction or even condition of the shed, and it wasn't brought up on any forms.

I am not structurally qualified anyway, so wouldn't have been in a position to comment on it's structural integrity, but it certainly wasn't on the verge of falling over when I moved out.

I have written a letter back, explaining my position, and trying to explain why this is now his problem.

I may add, he is not from these shores, shall we say, so there is a slight language barrier to cross also.

Wait and see what his reaction is to my letter.

Catblue

It is so unsafe and structurally unstable that he has just left it there all this time?

Utter tosh. If it were really unsafe then he'd have it pulled down pronto - not wait 8 months.

If he replies again (and he will) just tell him that you consider the matter closed and will not enter into further correspondence on this matter. And then don't.

princeofpounds

I have written a letter back, explaining my position, and trying to explain why this is now his problem.

The less you write the better frankly - any slip-up and you might imply some measure of liability. Just refuse all liability if you believe you are in the right (and personally I think you are but I don't know all the circumstances), state that you ahve no liability, and if it goes to court, defend it (note - if in small claims you might not get awarded costs).

GDB2222

I am not at all amazed by the cost of the asbestos removal. In fact that sounds pretty cheap, given the rigmarole that's (probably quite rightly) involved.

surreybased

Hi,

What a pain for you but I agree with pop to limit the comminucation you have with him. Perhaps consider using the term 'without prejudice'.

As everyone has stated it is his responsibility to check out the structure of the building..buyer beware.

Suspect this is a culture issue - although I'm not sure that anywhere in the world a seller warrants the condition of a property.

sunshinetours

princeofpounds wrote: »

The less you write the better frankly - any slip-up and you might imply some measure of liability. Just refuse all liability if you believe you are in the right (and personally I think you are but I don't know all the circumstances), state that you ahve no liability, and if it goes to court, defend it (note - if in small claims you might not get awarded costs).

Indeed - espeically if there are language barriers involved. Very difficult to sometimes get points across. Just ensure you make it clear once and for all you accept no liability on this and let him make the running. As above carry out no further correspondence