Sold property and roof caved in, HELP URGENT!!!

silvercar

Some disjointed thoughts:

there never seems to be solicitors on these boards.

flat roofs don't just collapse; they show signs of deterioation, damp, leaks etc. who failed to spot this? the surveyor? the buyer? or was it well camouflaged?

why do people have surveys? to find out if there are problems with a house before purchase.

Wig

tpurch wrote:

Hi Braken,

I am really sorry to here about your troubles! I don't really have anything to add regarding the legal position but ..... (and I hope you don't take affence to this...) I think you maybe being a bit hard on the new owner.

I don't know all the details of this, but if I purchased a house and then the roof had caved in, I would be really, really !!!!ed and very suspicious that the previous owner knew that something was wrong when they sold it. (I am not saying this is whats happend but there are some people who would sell a house knowing that the roof was knacked, but cover it up to get the sale)


So, I know it may seem unreasonable to you but, I wouldn't blame him because I am sure from his point of view he has been "sold a lemon".

Just sit back and think, what if it happened to you? would you accept that you made a mistake by not taking up insurance or having a full survey, or would you tend to believe that you have been stitched up by the seller?

When you buy a house, don't you expect to receive it in the condition that it was when you viewed it (I know I do) and to be honest I wouldn't expect the roof to cave-in the first time we had heavy rain or even within 6months of it!

Yes, he should have had a full survey, but many people don't because of cost and you would think that(rightly or wrongly) an valuation would take account of major concerns such as the roof etc.


Sorry, if I sound like I am defending him (but I guess I am), but not because I don't believe you or feel for you, its that I feel sorry for everyone involved!!!!

I am really sorry that its causing you & your mum stress and I hope everything works out OK!

Bottom line is the buyer should get a full survey done, or do it yourself if you are knowledgeable enough.

Bottom line is you cannot expect something like a house or car to remain in the exact condition you viewed it in, wear and tear is an ongoing process S#!T happens!

Bottom line is that you cannot realistically think that the old dear pulled down the roof deliberately out of spite, it was wear and tear.

Bottom line is irrespective of how unfortunate it is, if it happened before exchange seller wouldhave had to notify and definately be responsible. If it happened after completion buyer would have to live with it. It has unfortunately happened in the interim period. Unfortunate but ultimately it all depends on what the law says about this as to who is responsible.

Just sit back and think, what if it happened to you? would you accept that you made a mistake by not taking up insurance or having a full survey, or would you tend to believe that you have been stitched up by the seller?

I would accept that it was MY fault as a buyer not to have surveyed, not to have taken insurance (assuming ins would pay which is doubtful). I would never think "I have been stitched up by seller" because How exactly? did the seller force me to buy the house? Did the seller force me not to have a full survey? Did the seller have any obligation of disclosure of known faults? (probably not unless life threatening) Would the seller have even been expected to know this fault was imminent? - I don't expect the lady would have known about it.

IMO morally speaking it is the buyers responsibility (contracts had been exchanged - that to me means you have agreed to take on this building with all its faults). Legally speaking I have no idea who is responsible but I would expect both parties to take legal advice before arguing with each other over who is responsible and making demands.

Wig

It also looks from the OP like exchange of contracts had taken place and completion had taken place (keys handed over) however it also appears they had been given some period of grace to move their stuff out.

Did the collapse happen after keys given? That would mean it is definately (IMH non-official O) the buyers responsibility.

However if there is legal ambiguity which allows it to be sellers responsibility during the interim period between exchange & completion the fact that they were still in occupation after completion could muddy the waters.

culpepper

I agree with wig. If contracts had already been signed and exchanged and the property was not damaged on leaving it,it is his house and his problem. Building societies always tell you ,you need a surveyor to do a proper survey as well as the one they are doing. I suppose he didnt need a mortgage and so just paid for a quick survey trusting to luck.
If his surveyor missed obvious imminent structural damage ,he should be looking to get compensation from him unless there is some sort of get out for the surveyor in the documents he submits himself( I bet there is).
His own buildings insurance should pay for the damage. If he doesn't have any , more fool him!
IMHO If contracts were exchanged, its not your problem anymore.

We nearly had a similar problem ourselves,a house we had an offer accepted on had a major flood due to a pipe dripping from the water tank and freezing.My late FIL had pointed it out to the owner when he surveyed for us(architect and surveyor) the owner wanted us to buy at original price and get it back from our insurance and my FIL said that was sometimes done .We decided to walk away though as we didnt have an alternative place to live while it was gutted and refloored and plastered etc.

furndire

Surely you don't hand over keys to buyer until money has been paid, and then it is the buyers house therefore his problem. If removal men saw that the roof was in tact, then it was in tact.
I think it did say that the surveyor had told the buyer that the felt roof would soon need to be repaired, it was up to him to ask how soon, and then negotiate the price accordingly. If he did not do this - tough - he saved money by not getting a proper survey done.
When we sold our last house the surveyor told our buyers the roof might need doing soon, we negotiated.
Your mum isn't a clarevoyent is she? so can't be expected to know when a roof will fail.

courtjester

prudryden wrote:

.

A flat roof suffering from deterioration of the felt should have shown signs of damp entering the property for an extended period of time and would have been picked up by a proper survey - even a basic one unless it was only an evaluation.

Not true. In most cases, the worn out condition of a flat roof is discovered only on the day that it (finally) starts leaking. Small seepage through fine cracks will only marginally weep into the underlying boards which may be marine ply or 'chipboard' - the former being much more robust, the latter tending to take up the water like a sponge and expand, further quickening the eventual complete demise of the roof.

There may be no evidence within the accommodation or obvious signs externally that could be picked up by any survey - the most surveyors will tend to do with flat roofs is comment on their limited life and that the roof may need replacement if it is not pristine.

Clearly, roofs like this do not fail on sunny days - which is why most people point to 'storm' or 'severe rain' supposedly *causing* the damage, but this is misinformed. Obviously, once a flat roof has finally deteriorated to the point at which a substantial leak will occur, it only awaits that day of heavy rain for this to become apparent.

The facts of this event are not clear - the OP states that the roof 'caved-in', which is different from collapse and also may be an exaggeration anyway.

Was it the internal ceiling which 'caved-in' or the external boards supporting the roofing felt? If it was the boards, this suggests that they were of the chipboard variety which had crumbled due to saturation thus causing a dip in the roof level at that point - probably only revealed by inspecting the roof once water started to come through to the inside.

I would empasise again that this is not something covered by the building insurance, so talk of 'let the insurers deal with it' is not a solution.

Also, my understanding and referring to the excellent comments of peterbaker up-thread, is that you don't assume ownership at exchange of contracts, but you do acquire an 'insurable interest' in the property in the form of your obligation to complete the purchase, so naturally it becomes appropriate to have your own policy on the property (in case of destruction by fire etc) just in case the vendor disappears post-fire or is uninsured.

WHICH? recently confirmed in their comments about vendors' responsibility for inaccurate statements about property (in private advertising) that although a private vendor is not subject to the same laws as an estate agent as regards liabilities to buyers (Estate Agents Act 1979 and Property Misdescriptions Act 1991), the vendor is nevertheless bound by other laws including the "Sale of Goods" Acts and "Misrepresentation Act" - so just like with goods sold in shops, on Ebay or buying a car privately, the vendor has a responsibility to supply the goods (or house) in the manner described and if the purchase turns out to be fundamentally different from that agreed upon, then the vendor is liable to rectify the situation.

That is quite different from buying 'as seen' providing the condition of the property does not change - the responsibility for checking for defects lies firmly with the buyer. The vendor is only responsible for being honest in answers to questions and statements made about the property.

If the condition 'as seen' of the property *changes* between the time sale is agreed and completion, that is the vendor's responsibility.

Wig

courtjester wrote:

That is quite different from buying 'as seen' providing the condition of the property does not change - the responsibility for checking for defects lies firmly with the buyer. The vendor is only responsible for being honest in answers to questions and statements made about the property.

If the condition 'as seen' of the property *changes* between the time sale is agreed and completion, that is the vendor's responsibility.

This case is not clear cut though. From the OP, contracts had been exchanged, moneies paid, keys given. i.e. completion.

OP says they still had stuff to move out (which may or may not complicate things). OP states "I gave him the keys and it is his fault he did not check the property?"

Which could mean a nummber of things, it could mean the buyer did not inspect at all, or it could mean he did not inspect when the keys were given.

OP says removers can vouch for the hole not being there one day and being there the next, I suspect this will be after keys handed over. (completion)

I wish OP would come back and explain it all in detail!

peterbaker

Wig wrote:

OP says removers can vouch for the hole not being there one day and being there the next, I suspect this will be after keys handed over. (completion)

Wig, are you basing your comment on this?:

braken2000 wrote:

There are people who saw it (movers and builders) on the day and who never saw it before. Would this count?

Doesn't sound like more than one day of witnessing to me, and if both movers and builders were working for OP's Mum, doesn't help her much, does it?

Perhaps builders were there for Buyer? To fix a dodgy roof before Buyer moved in? Who knows. I think we've gone as far as we can with this unless OP comes back to us with better info, now.

Wig

Yes you're right it doesn't sound like more than one day of witnessing.

Still it does sound like completion had taken place, and when they went to a certain room to remove items they found the roof had a hole. How does Buyer prove this happened before completion and or exchange when he didn't inspect the property?

It's sellers word against buyers seller can say it wasn't there on day XX (day of completion).
Buyer can only say it was there x days/hours after completion. Which proves nothing.