suing previous owner/builder

nat38

in summary - bought a house in 2006, done up/extended by the previous owner who was a builder. the (flat) roof was always a problem and was re-felted etc etc but now we decided to fix it properly. while doing so the (new) builder found out the materials that had been used are not safe for roof construction.
we're considering taking action, ie suing him. anyone has any experience with situations like this? is it worth it?
any advise appreciated.
thanks

ILW

After 6 years - No chance.

Did you have a full survey done?

nat38

thanks for replying

yes, had a full survey and it mentioned there that the roof had to be re-felted, which was a condition of the sale. but the problem we found out now goes beyond that, is the type of boards he used underneath the felt.

so, no chance after 6 years? :mad:

martinsurrey

Did the work (extension) have a building regs sign off?

the materials used might not have been ideal, but if they were safe and signed off, then its not his fault really.

if its not signed off by building regs, why did you buy it?

zzzLazyDaisy

nat38 wrote: »

yes, had a full survey and it mentioned there that the roof had to be re-felted, which was a condition of the sale.

If you had any claim at all, it would have been against the Surveyor for failing to alert you to the problem. Even that is doubtful as the surveyor couldn't see under the roofing felt to assess the construction.

But any speculation is irrelevant as 6 years have passed and you are outside the limitation periods.

G_M

As above.

1) Time has passed.
2) surveyor could not comment on what he could not see
3) Building Regs

MX5huggy

Are you a founder of Skype?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-20306459

zzzLazyDaisy

Just a quick after-note on limitation period in negligence claims

There is such a thing as a 'latent damage' claim - this is where the claimant could not have known about the claim within the normal limitation period, because it didn't show up until later (common in negligence cases at work resulting in health problems later on). In these circumstances the claimant has three years from either the date of knowledge of loss or the date when it ought to have reasonably known about the loss. There is a final time limit of 15 years from the date of the defending party's negligent act or omission.

The important thing to be aware of is that these claims are both complicated and costly, so unless you are very wealthy or you have legal cover under your house insurance, for example, it is probably a non-starter.

Even if you can afford legal advice and representation, you first have to show that the builder has a duty of care towards you. The normal rule in buying houses is 'buyer beware'. In other words it is up to the buyer to establish that the house is worth the money they are paying for it.

For OP, the rectification of the roof was a condition of the mortgage - if this had been done in a timely fashion the defects would have been discovered much earlier, and I think there is a very high possibility that, even if he had a case against the seller (which I doubt) there is a high possibility that he would fail owing to the application of the date that he 'would reasonably have known about the loss'.

OP if you feel strongly enough about this, go and see a solicitor, but don't waste time and don't hold your breath.

Edit - thanks to MX5Huggy for the link to the skype-man's case! I have no idea how he proposes to sue the architect etc given that he was not a party to the contract, and the architect did not owe him a duty of care... and I bet it never gets as far as a court hearing, but I have made a note to follow the case out of interest :-)

martinsurrey

He'll rely on the Defective Premises Act section 1 subsection 4 A

“a)in the course of a business which consists of or includes providing or arranging for the provision of dwellings or installations in dwellings; or

(b)in the exercise of a power of making such provision or arrangements conferred by or by virtue of any enactment;
arranges for another to take on work for or in connection with the provision of a dwelling shall be treated for the purposes of this section as included among the persons who have taken on the work. ”

The architect is in a business which includes the arranging for the provision of a dwelling, so is considered a person having taken on the work for the purposes of the Act.

I can’t see him winning though, habitable is a very loose term and doesn’t include perfect.

Fire_Fox

How do you know the new builder is telling the truth/ correct and not manipulating you into paying for extra work?

phill99

A well known phrase is appropriate here: "you have two hopes, and one of them is Bob."