has anyone successfully taken the council to court over an ex-council house problems

mufi

Many thanks - interesting that a Council does have a greater duty of care. What I don't think we've estabished is whether the Council knew about the problem before completion and if the OP bought direct from the Council.

catfish50

mufi wrote: »

Many thanks - interesting that a Council does have a greater duty of care. What I don't think we've estabished is whether the Council knew about the problem before completion and if the OP bought direct from the Council.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that document means the OP doesn't have much chance, even if the vendor was the council. Given that councils are required by law to notify buyers of known structural defects, they would probably comply. So they probably didn't know, or at least didn't "officially" know.

Real bad luck. Of course the OP could have avoided it by getting a full structural survey, as has been posted, but he is hardly the only person to buy without paying out for the full survey. It's just real bad luck.

---

Having read the OP's other thread at https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3190350, it seems the structural problems are potential, due to the type of construction. Which makes it very unlikely, it seems to me, that the Council could be held liable.

chambta

catfish50 wrote: »

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that document means the OP doesn't have much chance, even if the vendor was the council. Given that councils are required by law to notify buyers of known structural defects, they would probably comply. So they probably didn't know, or at least didn't "officially" know.

Real bad luck. Of course the OP could have avoided it by getting a full structural survey, as has been posted, but he is hardly the only person to buy without paying out for the full survey. It's just real bad luck.

By 'full survey' are people referring to the full structural report?

In my experience less than 50% of buyers even go as far a Homebuyers survey.

catfish50

chambta wrote: »

By 'full survey' are people referring to the full structural report?

Yes, that's what I was referring to.

BitterAndTwisted

chambta wrote: »

In my experience less than 50% of buyers even go as far a Homebuyers survey.

In that case more than 50% of buyers are foolish

lynsco

I thought that was why a home buyers report was now supplied to point out any defects?

ILW

catfish50 wrote: »

According to a document at http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/138178.pdf the landlord should tell the would-be purchaser of any structural defects the landlord knows about.

Not too sure who they mean by "the landlord" but maybe it's the Council.

That does appear to refer to leasehold properties.

catfish50

ILW wrote: »

That does appear to refer to leasehold properties.

It doesn't apply, anyway, since it appears from the OP's other thread that the property was already privately-owned when they bought it. In any case, it also transpires from the other thread that the structural problems are only potential and therefore the OP has not suffered any loss at present. Not clear to me on what grounds the OP thinks s/he might have a viable case against the council.

mo786uk

If the house is classed as 'defective' under law then the Council will have had to tell the original purchaser (assuming the law existed at the time) - it appears the OP has bought the house from someone else and not the Council - therefore the onus would be on them to do their own survey.