Seller lied on property questionaire - Electrical fire

mufi

sean1989 wrote: »

To be clear- Had it said "yes" changes were made and a survey brought back these issues - this house would still be up for sale

Sorry, I'm a bit baffled, but are you saying that if the PIF had said changes had been made, then you would have had a survey and not gone ahead with the purchase?


I thought, despite much evidence to the contrary, you believed you HAD had a survey...

AdrianC

sean1989 wrote: »

I respect this - but remember - the sellers marked "no" to any electrical amendments in the property

But they didn't _just_ say "No", did they? They said "No" and "To follow" - but the follow-on never happened, and you were happy to give your conveyancer the go-ahead to exchange contracts without that information being sent.

The fact they marked "no" is a deliberate lie

Is it? Can you prove it?

Yes, the shower was replaced - but they DIDN'T update the circuit to it. They should have, but didn't. Is replacing an electric shower an "amendment"? Debatable. Likewise replacing a cooker - in fact, you've been told that replacing a cooker is explicitly not notifiable under Part P.

Sure, there's been amendments, but you have no way of knowing when the amendments were made - the colours of the cabling suggest that it was before the cut-off date on the PIF.

OK, so let's assume they do shrug and say "OK, very sorry, we were wrong on the dates, and they were after the cut-off instead of just before as we believed - we were going to rummage out the paperwork and send it through, but didn't find it until after exchange - when we did find it, while packing, we left it for you.", what then? You didn't take the standard, perfectly reasonable step of arranging a survey to inform yourself of the condition of the property before purchase.

You say that you would have had the electrics inspected if they'd said "yes", but there was more than enough evidence available to you to suggest that the electrics would very strongly benefit from modernising anyway, even without being aware of changes or specific problems. In fact, the problems you're facing now arise from the fact that the electrics HAVEN'T been updated and modernised recently.

and this is what my case will be built around.

"Your case"? So you are taking it to court?

Seriously, take the blame-culture rose-tinted 20/20-hindsight specs off, and put that money towards the work instead.

sean1989_2

AdrianC wrote: »

But they didn't _just_ say "No", did they? They said "No" and "To follow" - but the follow-on never happened, and you were happy to give your conveyancer the go-ahead to exchange contracts without that information being sent.



Is it? Can you prove it?

Yes, the shower was replaced - but they DIDN'T update the circuit to it. They should have, but didn't. Is replacing an electric shower an "amendment"? Debatable. Likewise replacing a cooker - in fact, you've been told that replacing a cooker is explicitly not notifiable under Part P.

Sure, there's been amendments, but you have no way of knowing when the amendments were made - the colours of the cabling suggest that it was before the cut-off date on the PIF.

OK, so let's assume they do shrug and say "OK, very sorry, we were wrong on the dates, and they were after the cut-off instead of just before as we believed - we were going to rummage out the paperwork and send it through, but didn't find it until after exchange - when we did find it, while packing, we left it for you.", what then? You didn't take the standard, perfectly reasonable step of arranging a survey to inform yourself of the condition of the property before purchase.

You say that you would have had the electrics inspected if they'd said "yes", but there was more than enough evidence available to you to suggest that the electrics would very strongly benefit from modernising anyway, even without being aware of changes or specific problems. In fact, the problems you're facing now arise from the fact that the electrics HAVEN'T been updated and modernised recently.



"Your case"? So you are taking it to court?

Seriously, take the blame-culture rose-tinted 20/20-hindsight specs off, and put that money towards the work instead.

Lets look at everything as a whole.

1) electrician is happy to do a full report and testimony based on his findings
2) the electric board is coming tonight to inspect the main fuse box
3) Scottish power have admitted that " a fault with the CU " was present back in June - just never told us
4) Invoices left show work carried out in 2009 on gas and electrics by a none certified party
5) The shower manufacturer has confirmed off the serial number that it was post 2005 - in fact May 2008 was its first sale date.
6) Conveyancers admitted something marked "no" then "to follow" should have been followed up on their end
7) Formal complaint has been made to the conveyancers to research and they are currently contacting the sellers solicitors.

8) there are other issues that i didn't put in my opening post, the lawn flooding yet the form being marked as "no flooding" the smell through the house that was masked with diffusers and air fresheners - this smell has now been traced to standing water between the floorboards due to a leak that must have occurred. The builder couldn't find any leaks in the property so presuming this was again pre purchase damage.

I can face the fact i appear to have been taken for a ride - but nevertheless in a court its all about what's the law - if certificates are not located ... im struggling to see their defence in this,

the misinterpretation act 1967 doesn't require me to prove that they were in the wrong (although i have clear evidence to state they are) its up to them to prove they wasn't

martinsurrey

sean1989 wrote: »

I respect this - but remember - the sellers marked "no" to any electrical amendments in the property - this is what my OP is about.

The fact they marked "no" is a deliberate lie and this is what my case will be built around.

and based on what I have read you will lose.

The 2 things you are probing (the cooker and the shower) are both not notifiable, as long as they are like for like replacements, so do not need paperwork done.

the TA6 question asks

"Has the property been rewired or had any electrical installation
work carried out since 1 January 2005?"

and I would say, replacing the shower and cooker are a no to this, they are fixed outlets of the electrical installation. Unless you can prove that the wiring behind these was changed post 2005, the old owners are in the clear.

sean1989 wrote: »

Had this said "yes" then im sure the solicitor would have advised for further testing and even i would have kicked and screamed about it - ultimately then probably leading to me not completing the purchase.

Sellers need to be aware that these forms are obviously relied upon and lying on them will not result in a positive outcome for anyone.

A formal complaint is now sent to the conveyancers who are shocked and appalled that this has slipped through their hands.

Already they have expressed their concerns in the solicitor "missing" the "no" to amendments but marking "to follow"

To be clear- Had it said "yes" changes were made and a survey brought back these issues - this house would still be up for sale

as above, the things you know they did, would justify the no to the question as it is stated on the form.

sean1989_2

martinsurrey wrote: »

the TA6 question asks

"Has the property been rewired or had any electrical installation
work carried out since 1 January 2005?"

The form in front of me says "Has there been any electrical work completed since January 2005"

Not quite the same wording as yours...

AdrianC

sean1989 wrote: »

The form in front of me says "Has there been any electrical work completed since January 2005"

Not quite the same wording as yours...

This is the current version (3rd edition) of the form.
http://www.horizonlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Form-TA6.pdf
q12.2 is the one we're talking about, right? Not q5.1e?

2nd edition was much more restricted in q12
http://www.fjg.co.uk/cms/document/sellers_property_information_form.pdf

martinsurrey

sean1989 wrote: »

The form in front of me says "Has there been any electrical work completed since January 2005"

Not quite the same wording as yours...

Maybe not, the crux of the matter is the same, unless it wasn't a like for like replacement (which you cant prove), I wouldn't call it electrical work.

what is the title of the form, the standard one is the TA6 3rd edition.

http://www.horizonlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Form-TA6.pdf

sean1989_2

AdrianC wrote: »

This is the current version (3rd edition) of the form.

q12.2 is the one we're talking about, right? Not q5.1e?

2nd edition was much more restricted in q12
]

Were talking about 4.2 D - Where they marked "no" then "to follow"

I think this is where people have maybe confused the OP..

So i have invoices that state work was carried out in 2009+ by an unlicensed firm in both gas and electricity yet the sellers say no work was done...

This is my frustration and confusion in the whole matter...

Can anyone define what "electrical work" covers?

martinsurrey

sean1989 wrote: »

Were talking about 4.2 D - Where they marked "no" then "to follow"

so unrelated to the electrical questions?

I'm not saying they are in the right, but if you are going to Prove they are in the wrong, you are going to have to put a much better argument together.

and YOU have to prove there was a misrepresentation, and then its up to the other side to prove it wasn't wilful.

AdrianC

So your vendors used the old version of the form.
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/press-releases/new-law-society-forms-will-smooth-path-for-property-deals/

Did they DIY their conveyancing?