problems after buying a house

antrobus

Legally speaking I believe that the question is; did the seller misrepresent the condition of the property, and has the buyer suffered any loss as a result of this misrepresentation? Even if it can be proved that a misrepresentation was made, the loss suffered will be the difference between a) what they paid for the property and b) what they would otherwise have paid for the property. As opposed to whatever was spent rectifying the problem.

Whether or not it would be worthwhile going legal over the OP's particular issue would be one thing, it still might be worthwhile in complaining to the vendor and 'threatening' legal action with the hope of reaching a settlement.

phil1986_2

BoGoF wrote: »

As has been said it's YOUR responsibility to check these things. You have asked why would you when they seller said it was in good working order, 2 things to that

1) Would you accept their word if they said the house was in good order? No you get a survey.
2) It may have been in working order which doesn't make it 'safe' for inspection/service purposes.

By pursuing this you will only incur additional legal fees. Maybe you should be complaining closer to home, i.e. your own solicitor.

and why is it my responsibilty, if i went to a shop and bought a boiler that is used but working and took it home to find out its broke. would it have been my responsibility to get it tested before buying or is it the sellers responsibilty for misselling? so how can you justify its my responsability when it really comes under the same trading act.
fair enough i can understand my solicitor could have done more and some blame my lie there. but i refuse to accept it as my responsiblity, as for survey you dont have a choice in that as banks wont give a morgate without that.
so as for your 1) Would you accept their word if they said the house was in good order? No you get a survey. that again comes down to misselling. by law you have to describe what is being sold as best as possible.

noh

so how can you justify its my responsability when it really comes under the same trading act.

But the two situations do not come under the same "trading act"

Conrad

phil1986 wrote: »

by law you have to describe what is being sold as best as possible.

1) Which law specifically (sale of goods act applies to retailers)

2) Exactly which clause of such a law are you looking to enforce


Honestly mate, do yourself a big favour and put it down to experience. You will not get a penny of compensation.

You CHOSE not to have a full sturctural survey and full aplliance / gas check. So tough titty. Your Solicitors will have no liability - there will be all sorts of recommendations referred to in the papers you were given that will include statements that advise you to have the requisite professional check the property for you.

PS - dont ask mates of yours for thier opinions. Just like freinds who side with their mate getting divorced, they will side with you, but it's just freindship bias.

dimbo61

House empty for 5/6 years says alot!
You are better getting a whole new central heating system with new boiler Valiant combi and all new pipework/radiators.( 5 years warranty)
Complete new rewire and total replaster as well I guess
Hope you got it for a good price in todays market
Going down the legal route may well be a waste of money but I am sure a solictor would be happy to fight your case and take your money

phil1986_2

thank for the response everyone. the thing i still want to know is, is the buyed in the wrong for lying on the form as to be honest if i new central heating wasnt working i would have negotiaged the price down and due to there mistake i didnt get that chance.
i did get the house very cheap for what it was. but it taking alot of time and money to resolve it. which is why im fighting this as dont really want no heating or hot water for all winter .

BoGoF

One point hasn't been clarified - was the central heating actually working, i.e. heat water and radiators. If so then you have no chance of pursuing this, you were aware the day of the last service was not known but decided to proceed with the purchase anyway.

phil1986_2

no central heating was not working at all and i got it check week after day i moved in. was leaking gas and extremely rusted. is old back boiler.
what i dont get is why the seller put on the legal forms
central heating good working condition (yes)
year of last services (not known)
only reason i could think they would put working is to get a faster sale. And that to me sound like falsifying facts to make a sale. and thats still my main issue. how can if the knew it had not been check in 2 years put yes. if they didnt no the should have put no

picardygirl

What did the survey say about the boiler?

ziggyman99

I'm sorry to say but if the house was empty for 5/6 years and you expected the boiler to be in a good state, your being naive.