Problems with the house after we've moved in & sellers won't acknowledge them

AdrianC

GlynD wrote: »

You'd both be wrong in those assumptions that it's a contractual convention. It is a provision under law

So you've been asked to reference that legislation.

All you've done is provide some sites that say "Well, it should be part of the contract". If it's part of the contract, then it's enforcable - sure - under contract law.

But, if you're right (and I have no idea) then even if it isn't in the contract, there's explicit legal enforcement available under this mysterious legislation.

googler

GlynD wrote: »

It says:

If you discover anything wrong, get in touch with your solicitor at once. The missives should specify an amount of time during which the seller is still responsible for anything that isn't working (fair wear and tear excepted). This is usually five working days. Your solicitor will arrange for the seller to pay to put it right.

Is that not enough for you?

... but it says that under a heading of "The heating or utility supplies aren't working?", so it's not referring to 'anything', it's referring to anything in the working systems within the property, as I referred to above in the standard clauses.

GlynD

AdrianC wrote: »

So you've been asked to reference that legislation.

All you've done is provide some sites that say "Well, it should be part of the contract". If it's part of the contract, then it's enforcable - sure - under contract law.

But, if you're right (and I have no idea) then even if it isn't in the contract, there's explicit legal enforcement available under this mysterious legislation.

There's nothing mysterious about it - if you live in Scotland. You being a sassenach just don't know and expect me, an Irishman to educate you?

googler wrote: »

... but it says that under a heading of "The heating or utility supplies aren't working?", so it's not referring to 'anything', it's referring to anything in the working systems within the property, as I referred to above in the standard clauses.

Just a second guys: I don't work for you and I'm under no obligation to find anything for you on Google. This is my last post on the subject and is a copy and paste from a standard contract which is used on some occasions. If you're still not happy then I suggest you consult the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia which contains all Scottish Law.

• (a) The Seller undertakes that any systems or appliances of a working nature (including central heating, water, drainage, electric and gas) forming part of the Property will be in working order commensurate with age as at the Date of Settlement.
  

• (b) The Seller will make good any defect which prevents any system or appliance being in such order provided said defect is intimated in writing within 5 working days of settlement. Failing such intimation, the Purchaser will be deemed to be satisfied as to the position.
  

• (c) The Seller will only be responsible for carrying out any necessary repairs to put any system or appliance into such order and shall have no liability for any element of upgrading (except to the extent such upgrading is required to put any such system or appliance into such order).
  

• (d) The lack of any regular service or maintenance of any system or appliance or the fact that it may no longer comply with current installation regulations shall not, of itself, be deemed to be a defect.
  

• (e) The Purchaser shall be entitled to execute any necessary repairs at the expense of the Seller without reference to the Seller or the Seller’s tradesmen
  

(i) in the event of an emergency;
(ii) in the event that the Seller’s tradesmen do not in-spect the alleged defects within 5 working days of intimation; or
(iii) in the event that any necessary repairs are not carried out within 5 working days of inspection.

• (f) The Seller confirms that he has received no notice or intimation from any third party that any system (or any part thereof) is in an unsafe or dangerous condition.

googler

So, GlynD, with this post you contradict what you said at #23, and merely re-quote my post of #10 ....

You're the one who said 'everything' was covered, now you quote extracts which limit this to the working systems such as gas, electricity, utilities

GlynD

googler wrote: »

So, GlynD, with this post you contradict what you said at #23, and merely re-quote my post of #10 ....

You're the one who said 'everything' was covered, now you quote extracts which limit this to the working systems such as gas, electricity, utilities

Nope - what I said was:

It's not caveat emptor in Scotland; the vendor has a responsibility to ensure everything is working within reasonable expectation. Therefore if an oven door is not secure it is the vendor's responsibility to fix it as long as it is reported within 5 days. The same goes for the absence of window keys etc etc.

An appliance which doesn't work or locked windows with missing keys both come under that provision in my opinion and I would be contacting my conveyancing solicitor to apply for redress under breach of the missives.

googler

Yes, that's what you said, and that's what I said you said. You're being asked to provide references to legislation which support what you say, but all you've provided is advice pages and an extract from a set of standard clauses which reference only the utilities and other systems within the house - not the windows, not the oven door. You've essentially quoted the same extract as I did without the all-important heading under which it appears, and which gives it context.

And, as I pointed out at #54, you missed the heading from your Shelter quote too....

Suggest you re-read the thread from #10 onward.

GlynD

googler wrote: »

Yes, that's what you said, and that's what I said you said. You're being asked to provide references to legislation which support what you say, but all you've provided is advice pages and an extract from a set of standard clauses which reference only the utilities and other systems within the house - not the windows, not the oven door. You've essentially quoted the same extract as I did without the all-important heading under which it appears, and which gives it context.

And, as I pointed out at #54, you missed the heading from your Shelter quote too....

Suggest you re-read the thread from #10 onward.

I suggest you stop trying to tell me what to do.

googler

GlynD wrote: »

I suggest you stop trying to tell me what to do.

Toys. Pram. Thud.

If you're going to try to convince readers here of what the OP's and their vendor's positions are under Scots Law, you need to quote legislation, not advice pages from Shelter, or other organisations. The phrase you bolded a couple of posts up is yours, but you seem unable to provide the corresponding phrase in a legal context.

Quoting clauses without the headings under which they appear further muddies the waters.

GlynD

googler wrote: »

Toys. Pram. Thud.

If you're going to try to convince readers here of what the OP's and their vendor's positions are under Scots Law, you need to quote legislation, not advice pages from Shelter, or other organisations. The phrase you bolded a couple of posts up is yours, but you seem unable to provide the corresponding phrase in a legal context.

Quoting clauses without the headings under which they appear further muddies the waters.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. You've been given the information. Take it or leave it; it won't make any difference to how I sleep tonight.

I repeat. I do not take instructions from you: or anyone else. No matter how hard you try to provoke me with your childish comments.

Toodle pip! :cool:

[Deleted User]

Thread is tr;dr, but this sounds like exactly the sort of thing that Small Claims Court is ideal for. No need to involve lawyers, just get in front of a judge and get it all resolved in a couple of hours.