Seller lied on property questionaire - Electrical fire

sean1989_2

kellaree wrote: »

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.

But they answered "no" to any electrical works....

Even if it was good work - the certificates should be present and the decleration should say "yes" to electrical works

Am i missing something in my allegations here?

sean1989_2

SnooksNJ wrote: »

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.

Now were missing the bigger picture, ive raised a negligence complaint against the conveyancers as no survey was offered at any time and they conducted a standard strucutal survey without ua having a clue.

So the way to look at this is towards the defendent - what work was completed, who did it, and why was it not declared.

Im not suing them for the botched jobs. Im suing them for not declaring their botched jobs - had they said yes to electrical work its a different story...

mufi

sean1989 wrote: »

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!

Very few, judging by the small number that are in the public domain. Cases where purchasers pursue their surveyor are probably more common; those that are settled possibly tend to be settled out of court?


Most are simply dropped, I suspect. Mine was (I was at the receiving end of someone incorrectly accusing me of verbally lying). It was a horrible experience and has left me with little time for those who try and save money by dodging surveys, then try to mitigate their penny pinching and negligence by blaming an innocent party.

mufi

sean1989 wrote: »

But they answered "no" to any electrical works....

Even if it was good work - the certificates should be present and the decleration should say "yes" to electrical works

Am i missing something in my allegations here?

Yes. You're missing the fact that any work they had done may not have qualified as "electrical works", and you have no idea when the work was actually done, or who did it.


Sorry if I've missed something, but this thread has taken on a life of its own.

sean1989_2

mufi wrote: »

Very few, judging by the small number that are in the public domain. Cases where purchasers pursue their surveyor are probably more common; those that are settled possibly tend to be settled out of court?


Most are simply dropped, I suspect. Mine was (I was at the receiving end of someone incorrectly accusing me of verbally lying). It was a horrible experience and has left me with little time for those who try and save money by dodging surveys, then try to mitigate their penny pinching and negligence by blaming an innocent party.

Had i moved in and the floorboards were loose - i wouldn't be chasing them for the cost of a new floor and kick up a fuss saying" they told me they were going to fix it"

Its only because i have proof with the invoice or electrical and gas fitting - and the point that the house could have easily burnt down has we been sleeping - that i am very keen on chasing the matter...


I have found this online - good old which

Types of misrepresentation

A misrepresentation is a statement of fact (not opinion) which is made by the seller before the contract is made.
If you relied on that statement when deciding whether or not to go ahead with your purchase, and this then turns out to be wrong, you can claim compensation.
There are three types of misrepresentation and your path to redress will depend upon the following:
whether the false statement was made fraudulently
whether the false statement was made negligently
whether the false statement was made innocently
Fraudulent misrepresentation

A fraudulent misrepresentation occurs when someone makes a statement that -
they know is untrue, or,
they make without believing it is true, or,
they make recklessly
If you enter into a contract as a result of a fraudulent misrepresentation, then you can cancel the contract, claim damages, or both.
The Misrepresentation Act 1967 allows you to base your claim on negligence or on the fraud.
In addition, when a misrepresentation claim is based on negligence, the law states that the person who made the misrepresentation has to disprove the negligence.
In other words, they must prove that they had reasonable grounds to believe the statement, and that they believed the facts represented were true.
Negligent misrepresentation

This is a misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 where a statement is made carelessly or without reasonable grounds for believing its truth.
A negligent misrepresentation may fall under common law or under the Misrepresentation Act 1967. Financial loss may be recovered in some circumstances.
Innocent misrepresentation

This is where one of the parties, when entering into a contract, had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her false statement was true.
In other words, it is made entirely without fault. This type of misrepresentation primarily allows for the contract to be cancelled.
The purpose of this is to place you and the other party in the same position before the contract had taken place.
However, under Section 2(2) Misrepresentation Act 1967 the court has discretion to award damages instead of allowing you to end the contract if it deems it appropriate. It cannot award both.
This would be judged on both the nature of the innocent misrepresentation and the losses suffered by the victim of the misrepresentation.
Damages or rescission?

Once it has been established that there as been a misrepresentation and what type it is, then the remedies available can be determined.
There are two types of remedy:
Damages Financial compensation designed to compensate the victim of a misrepresentation for the harm done insofar as money can do this
Rescission The ability to end a contract and the parties are treated as though the contract never existed
The availability of the different remedies is determined by the type of misrepresentation and the stage the contract has reached when the victim discovers the misrepresentation.
Limitations of a misrepresentation

There are certain limitations on the right to rescission.
For example, if you are aware of a misrepresentation but choose to continue with the contract, you will not then be able to go back to the person who made the misrepresentation and end the contract, or indeed go to court and ask them to end the contract.
In law, you would be taken to have “affirmed” the contract.
An example would be, if you purchased a car on the basis of a misrepresentation as to the number of owners and then after discovering the truth you nevertheless continued to use it.
You may find that the court would say that by doing so, you had affirmed the contract.
In other words you could not later go back to the seller to end the contract, asking him to take back the car.

As mentioned above - even if they genuinely thought the work was carried out to standard - they never declared it was carried out at all

sean1989_2

mufi wrote: »

Yes. You're missing the fact that any work they had done may not have qualified as "electrical works", and you have no idea when the work was actually done, or who did it.


Sorry if I've missed something, but this thread has taken on a life of its own.

except i have an invoice, a company name and a date on there relating to the previous owners?

the company are not gas safe/electrical registered...

To me thats evidence?

kellaree

sean1989 wrote: »

Now were missing the bigger picture, ive raised a negligence complaint against the conveyancers as no survey was offered at any time and they conducted a standard strucutal survey without ua having a clue.
.

What do you mean by standard.. was it a Valuation? Home buyers? Full structural? It's not on them to OFFER you a survey, surely it's on you to ASK for what you want. What did you pay for?

And I could be wrong, but not even a full structural survey will cover electrics? To my knowledge, gas and electric surveys are seperate?

G_M

A poster who continues for over 100 posts to justify his alleged claim to a bunch of largely cynical strangers on the internet. With twists and turns and regular additions of information.....

I repeat, he will soon find a dog buried in the garden.

davidmcn

Never mind the black letter law, two things to consider before you sue anybody for anything:

1. Do you know where they are?
2. Do you know that they have enough cash to pay whatever you're claiming for?

sean1989_2

kellaree wrote: »

What do you mean by standard.. was it a Valuation? Home buyers? Full structural? It's not on them to OFFER you a survey, surely it's on you to ASK for what you want. What did you pay for?

And I could be wrong, but not even a full structural survey will cover electrics? To my knowledge, gas and electric surveys are seperate?

When speaking to them today they said they just did a "standard" survey.

Im beginning to think the countrywide have no idea what they are talking about...

am i missing something really obvious here?.... so we first saw our mortgage consultant and he said " they are using countrywide - do you want to as well, this was we can get the ball rolling and everything will be taken care of "

Yes we said - because as FTB we didnt want the hassle of looking around everywhere.

We signed the paperwork instructing them - the booklet we obtained never mentioned surveys nor did someone say "do you want a survey"

All that happened over the next few months is we got bombarded with paperwork and i distinctly remember seeing one that spoke about the structure.

Countrywide (today) confirmed that a structural survey was done and that was it... but as far as I was aware they were doing everything.... so if they just took it in their liberties to do a structural survey - i wonder in the 2k of fees if the survey was listed!