Seller hid damp problem!!

clutton_2

""Would this strengthen our case? "

you dont have a case.. whether or not he lied.. you did not undertake the sort of survey that would have revealed these problems.. you are now paying the price

please stop trying to blame others for your own poor decision making..

As others have said Caveat Emptor.. Buyer beware... ALL investigations are up to you.... NOT the vendor

you will have learned a hard and possibly expensive lesson here..

but on a brighter note.. damp can come from many simple things.. poor pointing, leaking gutters/downpipes, damp course being covered over with earth, leaky roofs, - some of these are cheap solutions.... investigate cheap solutions first...

having said that getting a Damp Course done now complete with insurance-backed Guarantee will make it easier for you to sell

Milliewilly

pawpurrs wrote: »

You have no recourse, whatsoever, if there was damp and you spoted it, then you could have had it checked out, but decided not to.

He does as the seller lied to him about it being the water butt and being solved so he felt he had no need to undertake a further survey.

Proving it is the difficult part but in law he does have a case for misrepresentation. Think about the SPIF form - have you received any correspondance about this or a neighbouring property or anything that may lead to a dispute? Bet he ticked 'no'. .

I personally think it will be throwing good money after bad as it will be relatively inexpensive compared to Court proceedings and the inherent risk of the vendor not paying up or paying a bit each week which is no good to anyone.

But the principle still stands he does have a case.

pawpurrs

Well I will agree to disagree, if the man lied about the waterbutt he will lie again ( or maybe the new neighbour has lied, and there was a waterbutt, but he does not want to take responsibility so easier to blame the vendor, who is long gone) and its his word against the OP, and any Judge will say that he should have had a survey if he was at all concerened, whatever the damp was caused by there was damp, and there was an issue, that needed to be sorted which the OP saw with his own eyes, he could have had it checked or he could have asked the vendor to sort it out prior to exchange of contracts, but he did neither. Yes in theroy he has a case, but not one with any guarantee at all of any success, and not worth pursuing, better to spend the money on rectifiying the problem, and chalking it up to experience.
We do not know who has lied here, it might not have been the vendor!

Milliewilly

Did the basic survey not mention damp? Even on those they wander round sticking the damp meter on the walls?

Emmzi

the "basic survey" is not a survey in most cases, just a valuation. often the surveyor goes nowhere near the house.

timmyt

tieffe63 wrote: »

My wife and I have just bought a house and foolishly only had basic survey. On the first day, we found 2 walls in the kitchen have severe damp. After investigating, we found out that the previous owner had a survey in December which uncovered the problem(we bought in April) but he chose to ignore it and not fix it. It wasn't declared on the HIP because that had been done in August. Basically, he sold the house knowing about a big damp problem. Do I have a legal case?

look up 'latent' and 'patent' defects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_defect

but probably unlikely to succeed as he doesn't have to tell you what is wrong with his own house

Milliewilly

timmyt wrote: »

look up 'latent' and 'patent' defects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_defect

but probably unlikely to succeed as he doesn't have to tell you what is wrong with his own house

Timmyt - I was under the impression you were a Lawyer.

The Seller very much does have to tell you what is wrong if the buyer asks which he did. Its a classic case of misrepresentation and there is a paper trail with the Survey to prove it.

tbs624

Milliewilly wrote: »

Timmyt - I was under the impression you were a Lawyer.

Millywilly - you can "be" anyone you want to be on the internet.

The OP has tried to do things on the cheap by failing to get a decent survey done.

There was apparently damp present when he viewed the property - he asked the vendor who may have said "we think its the neighbour's waterbutt causing the problem" and left it at that. However, the vendor then allegedly went on to get in his own damp suvey report which perhaps told a different tale.

The fact remains that the OP viewed a property which was damp, and bought that property, without checking it for himself via his own decent survey. The buyer had not concealed the fact that there was damp in existence.

I have to say that if I saw damp in a house I intended to but I'd get my solicitor to ask the vendor specific questions about it and I'd have got my own survey done ( by a specialist independent damp surveyor)

My suggestion would be that you talk to your original solicitor, having first got qualified assessment of what the cause of the damp is likely to be.

However, I tend to agree with those who have said you will be wasting your time and money in pursuing the vendor. You may need to treat it as an expensive learning curve for your next house purchase.

Never, ever, simply rely on the mortgage company's valuation - all that does is tell the mortgage company that they should be able to recoup their monies if you default on your mortgage payments , and given that you will have paid a deposit they would still be able to do that even with a couple of damp kitchen walls.

Milliewilly

I agree with what you are saying and my posts have stated that its probably not worth fighting purely on a cost basis but having been through something very similar (well it mirrors almost exactly except it was structural not damp) to this myself, the Law is clear - there has been misrepresentation by the Vendor regarding the damp.

The Vendor was asked by the buyer specifically about the damp in the kitchen and the Vendor didn't give a full and truthful answer (infact he threw a curved ball with the water butt arguement saying a claim was being made on the neighbours insurance) even though he had previously had a survey done in December - buyer completed in April for the problem. That is misrepresentation - fact.

The Vendor has concealed facts that he knew would jeapordise the sale. A Judge would take the view that the Buyer was hoodwinked by the Seller.

Another question really is why the Buyer didn't ask for a copy of the insurance claim details via his solicitor during the conveyancing process as this could have stopped the whole saga.

Rainyday100

I got caught our very similarly a few years ago. An potentially expensive mistake that we've not repeated!

We moved into a house after only having a basic valuation. The first thing we noticed on moving in was the smell, as soon as we opened the front door. We thought we had a sewer back up, it was that bad. Turns out that when they had an extension built they had transferred all the kitchen plumbing from the main drain (they had blocked it into the wall) to straight under the house. When we pulled floorboards up there was still water right there, half an inch from the surface! We got it fixed, luckily my Dad was a plumber so it took a lot of the expense. But it ruined the house for us and we moved again within two years.

We realised, looking back, that they were cooking every time we viewed, something to be wary of. and they had furniture where the rotten floorboards were. There's no way they didn't know, at one point we had mushrooms growing!!

Anyway, we chased the various people and, as said on here, had no recourse at all. So instead we sent a letter intended to make them feel very very bad, and guilty to the sellers solicitor to pass on. I'm sure they couldn't give a toss, but we felt better for it!

So, full survey, and be wary of cooking smells!

Bad luck OP on the damp, hope you get it sorted soon.