Seller lied on property questionaire - Electrical fire

sean1989_2

AdrianC wrote: »

So your vendors used the old version of the form.


Did they DIY their conveyancing?

The forms we have are not version controlled nor titled though. This is what threw me off when everyone was talking about Ta6 and things.

Its letter ally a piece of paper that says " property questionnaire"

Then the layout is different - almost like copy + paste into word and print to be fair.

Cornucopia

sean1989 wrote: »

Can anyone define what "electrical work" covers?

I would say anything concerning the electrical infrastructure of the property. i.e. excluding replacement of appliances, even where they are hard-wired, especially if the replacement is like-for-like.

Unfortunately, once a UK property is over 10-15 years old, its electrical installation can contain all sorts of nastiness.

I'm not sure about the requirement for Electrical contractors to be registered. There are certainly qualifications that the individual electricians should hold, but IIUC, it's nothing like the rigour of the Gas Safe Register. Not only that, but electrical work is allowed to be conducted by the householder/their mate from down the Pub, as long as those people are competent, and as long as the work is not notifiable under the Regulations.

sean1989_2

Some developments today,
1.formal complaint acknowledged by contrywide conveyancers

2. House insurance are happy to assist in the claim for repairs (thank god)

3. Solicitor has asked me for all details relating to the case as believes may be sufficient evidence to commence litigation against the seller. They have also reffered me to the legal ombudsman if the complaint is not upheld with them to see if everything has been completed above board. A result of suing the seller could be to claim costs+damages including compensation or a full rescind of the agreement thus the seller has to repurchase the property and i am left looking for a safer place.

Will post as and when i have responses.

wwl

sean1989 wrote: »

Some developments today,
A result of suing the seller could be to claim costs+damages including compensation or a full rescind of the agreement thus the seller has to repurchase the property and i am left looking for a safer place.

Sounds like someone is being rather optimistic there - I'd be surprised if you'd get any more than cost of returning it to a safe state, which probably doesn't even include a full rewire. It's not like it's anything major structural, and any plausible remedy isn't going to come to more then a few K worst case. To suggest that's grounds to rescind the sale, especially as you don't seem to have taken much effort to establish the situation prior to purchase, seems laughable to me, but IANAL.

sean1989_2

wwl wrote: »

Sounds like someone is being rather optimistic there - I'd be surprised if you'd get any more than cost of returning it to a safe state, which probably doesn't even include a full rewire. It's not like it's anything major structural, and any plausible remedy isn't going to come to more then a few K worst case. To suggest that's grounds to rescind the sale, especially as you don't seem to have taken much effort to establish the situation prior to purchase, seems laughable to me, but IANAL.

I think the solicitors are just explaining routes depending on the severity,

I class it as quite severe considering that 2 lives were at risk.

Whether or not we had the survey - is it ok for botched up jobs not to be declared in the first instance?
Us not having a survey is not an excuse for the seller to wire the house dangerously

kellaree

sean1989 wrote: »

A result of suing the seller could be to claim costs+damages including compensation or a full rescind of the agreement thus the seller has to repurchase the property and i am left looking for a safer place.

Will post as and when i have responses.

Anybody heard of this ever actually happening? A seller being forced to pay up or buy the house back? Seems like one of those laws that are never enforceable.

The fact that your insurance is willing to cover it should be enough.You didn't pay for an electrical survey so you had no idea what state the electrics were in before you bought the house. The questionnaire wording is ambiguous and I don't see how marking 'No' and 'to follow' on a form is going to be enough for Judge Judy to force the seller to somehow buy the house back....

martinsurrey

sean1989 wrote: »

Us not having a survey is not an excuse for the seller to wire the house dangerously

again, the burden of proof is on you for this one...

kellaree

sean1989 wrote: »

Us not having a survey is not an excuse for the seller to wire the house dangerously

I appreciate what you're saying but when ever this alleged work took place, it was their house not yours. They chose to live with that risk and so did you. You were the ones taking the risk moving in, without having an electrician check it out the same day. If were so concerned about safety, you would have had it checked even AFTER you completed.

Even if you had all the certificates for the work done, it might have been years previously and who's to say things hadn't changed since then? Good work could have good bad etc.

sean1989_2

martinsurrey wrote: »

again, the burden of proof is on you for this one...

Considering the cu was now apparently replaced in 2005 (not that i still believe the supplier) and they owned the property, any electrical work completed should have been to regulatory standard - if its not the i dont see how hard that is to prove (plus id let a solicitor do that part) as the post mentioned before, has anyone actually sued someone and won in this instance? Ive read about smaller cases online etc and some person claiming 67k for a niosance neighbour and winning... If only!

SnooksNJ

kellaree wrote: »

Anybody heard of this ever actually happening? A seller being forced to pay up or buy the house back? Seems like one of those laws that are never enforceable.

The fact that your insurance is willing to cover it should be enough.You didn't pay for an electrical survey so you had no idea what state the electrics were in before you bought the house. The questionnaire wording is ambiguous and I don't see how marking 'No' and 'to follow' on a form is going to be enough for Judge Judy to force the seller to somehow buy the house back....

Judge Judy: why didn't you get the electrical survey done before buying the house.
Claimant: I'm a FTB and someone should have told me to do it.
Judge Judy would bang her papers on the bench and say goodbye.
But I think they get $5K for appearing so everyone's happy.