How to legally warn others NOT to Buy

sophiaswaight

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote: »

Was yours the first survey? Is it possible the estate agent genuinely didn't know the state of the building until your survey came in?

It transpired that the seller himself was a building surveyor

moneyistooshorttomention

Sophia

Keep going down that right. You are absolutely correct in what you are doing on this imo.

If I had been the one in the position of being told the details you were - then that would equal I wouldn't dream of having to do anything to the place for literally years - because it was supposed to be perfect (or as near as dammit).

Good for you:T

sophiaswaight

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote: »

Yikes!

What about the estate agent though? Could they have been unaware?

That i dont know?

But they were unimpressed at our reasons for withdrawing stating that these problems were just minor works and were dismissive when we explained that the retention was fixed and could not simply be lifted by reducing the asking price. They also stated that "At no point was it ever suggested that the structure or integrity of the building had been refurbished"

What i don't understand is why would a seller do up a house to sell without fixing all these problems first, when they know these issues would come up on any survey? The wall ties I can maybe understand but why not install a new damp proof course before installing a brand new kitchen and why spend all that time and effort reconditioning and sanding the floor boards when underneath they are rotten?

DRP

I'd be interested to know exactly how the damp and rot were ascertained...

It sounds scary to get that report, but unless an invasive damp test was carried out (ie. not one of those pronged damp-o-meters, but something more scientific), and floorboards were removed to actually see the 'rot', it is hard to be sure of the actual severity of the problem.

'Damp' is a very common in old houses and in the majority of cases is entirely manageable. I know i would never get a chemical dpc which is usually a waste of time and money, and is very destructive.

sophiaswaight

DRP wrote: »

I'd be interested to know exactly how the damp and rot were ascertained...

It sounds scary to get that report, but unless an invasive damp test was carried out (ie. not one of those pronged damp-o-meters, but something more scientific), and floorboards were removed to actually see the 'rot', it is hard to be sure of the actual severity of the problem.

'Damp' is a very common in old houses and in the majority of cases is entirely manageable. I know i would never get a chemical dpc which is usually a waste of time and money, and is very destructive.

To clarify a sub timber floor survey was performed removing the floor boards in 2 out of 3 of the damp effected rooms, finding evidence of wood rot.

Im not sure about the damp readings, but they said that high moisture reading were detected and a high salt content was present.

Alarm bells also started to ring when our solicitor said the damp proof certificate the vendors had sent across was worthless

moneyistooshorttomention

sophiaswaight wrote: »

What i don't understand is why would a seller do up a house to sell without fixing all these problems first, when they know these issues would come up on any survey? The wall ties I can maybe understand but why not install a new damp proof course before installing a brand new kitchen and why spend all that time and effort reconditioning and sanding the floor boards when underneath they are rotten?

Because they thought they would get away with it in brief....:cool:

Now what's that phrase about "You cant make a silk purse out of a sows ear"???

DRP

sophiaswaight wrote: »

To clarify a sub timber floor survey was performed removing the floor boards in 2 out of 3 of the damp effected rooms, finding evidence of wood rot.

Im not sure about the damp readings, but they said that high moisture reading were detected and a high salt content was present.

Alarm bells also started to ring when our solicitor said the damp proof certificate the vendors had sent across was worthless

thanks for the clarification.

I agree with your sol too!

It sounds like the vendor has been a very silly boy/girl.

sophiaswaight

Hi everyone,

Although getting all this out has been really cathartic and has made me feel a whole lot better.

What should i do to stop this happening to someone else?

I like the idea of contacting the estate agent and reminding them of there legal right to inform future perspective buyers that they must inform them of any defects, but how would i phrase the email not to sound threatening, blackmailing or bitter.

Also i would like to send a similar letter to the vendor, stating that i will be contacting the new buyer to ensure they were made aware of these defects before they offered or had there home buyers report. But again i don't want to be sound threatening or blackmailing and obviously don't want to any legal recourse to come back on me.

Red-Squirrel_2

sophiaswaight wrote: »

Also i would like to send a similar letter to the vendor, stating that i will be contacting the new buyer to ensure they were made aware of these defects before they offered or had there home buyers report. But again i don't want to be sound threatening or blackmailing and obviously don't want to any legal recourse to come back on me.

Definitely definitely don't do that!

I completely sympathise with your desire to punish these people and let them know that you don't want to let them get away with being less than honest/honourable, but you'd only be hurting yourself by having further contact with them.

Word of mouth is powerful, if you stick to the facts and the truth you're not doing anything wrong by telling people your experience with this particular house. In real life and on the internet.

Innys1

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I disagree strongly there - yes we ARE our brothers/or sisters keeper.

We would want other people to do the same for us and warn us off any potential "perils" we might not have spotted for ourselves wouldn't we?

Only if there was no risk of getting sued.