Seller lied on property questionaire - Electrical fire

dannim12345

Please don't use being a FTB as an excuse. I was one last year and I researched & got quotes for a solicitor, mortgage adviser and decided on a home-buyers survey quite easily. I regular spoke to my solicitor & researched anything I didn't fully understand.

In terms of the contractor not being gas or electrically 'qualified', lots of builders/contractors will subcontract these trades out so that by itself it doesn't 'prove' anything.

sean1989_2

wwl wrote: »

Don't forget that the issue (as far as getting any redress) is not that it was in a dangerous state, just that in your opinion this was not made as clear to you as you think it should have been.
A seller has no duty to make sure the property is safe - properties can be sold in any condition (except maybe a malicious attempt to deliberately cause injury) - and the onus is on the buyer to establish fitness for purpose.
Any issues with building regs, part P etc. are between thr person who did the works and the enforcing authority, and probably far too late for anyone to take any action over.
The only thing that matters is if you can prove that the seller deliberately misrepresented things which would have materially affected the sale price. Fixing it at the time, before any fireworks probably wouldn't have been more than a days's work for a few hundred quid.
Seems your main argument is they claimed no electrical works on the form - maybe they just forgot some work done a few years ago?

i did think about this -and maybe they did hire people in and they have basically turned out to be "rogues" so they were not aware at the time what had happened.

I believe this would then relate to " Innocent misrepresentation"

That normally results in the contract being reversed - ideally im looking for repairs and a safe house! it would certainly be awkward to have the house taken etc etc

mufi

sean1989 wrote: »

That normally results in the contract being reversed - ideally im looking for repairs and a safe house! it would certainly be awkward to have the house taken etc etc

Whoever told you that!?

AdrianC

mufi wrote: »

Whoever told you that!?

The wishful-thinking fairy, combined with a bit of selective reading of ill-understood legislation.

sean1989_2

AdrianC wrote: »

The wishful-thinking fairy, combined with a bit of selective reading of ill-understood legislation.

Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. It holds that a contract can be rescinded for innocent misrepresentation, even where the representee also had the chance to verify the false statement.

and others?

Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459

Nottingham Brick & Tile Co v Butler (1889) 16 QBD 778

Whittington v Seale-Hayne (1900) 82 LT 49

Rescinded contracts due to misrepresentation....

Probably something more frequent as well... but i didn't have time to find everything

AdrianC

So nothing at all that's from a remotely related transaction, or from the last eleven and a half decades?

sean1989_2

AdrianC wrote: »

So nothing at all that's from a remotely related transaction, or from the last eleven and a half decades?

McMeekin v Long [2003 + article at the time]

A couple who answered "no" on a standard conveyancing form which asked if they were aware of any disputes about the property they were selling have been found liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and have had to pay their buyers £67,500 in compensation and costs.

The case, which lawyers believe is the first of its kind, is a dire warning for anyone embroiled in a dispute with a neighbour who hopes to sell up and put it behind them. Anyone who sells a house in England and Wales has to fill in the seller's property information form, which has a standard question about disputes.

Judgment was delivered at Portsmouth county court last October, but because the case was in the county court rather than the high court it has had no publicity. The amount of compensation was recently settled out of court to avoid the cost of another hearing.

The case was heard by a senior high court judge because of the seriousness of the allegations, and will be seen as a precedent for future claims.

But as per your previous comments - i can only keep you in the loop to see what happens.

Chances are if the home insurance pays up - ill probably leave it there...

If they wont - well then ill take it further to recover the costs etc

AlexMac

AdrianC wrote: »

...Good luck. Please let us know what happens in the end.

I second that, Sean.

Although if you do succeed in getting any redress, Adrian should get a cut for sheer persistence in his tekky replies.

And if you do go to court, wheter or not you win, you should also send a PM to G_M who obviously doesn't believe anyone can post more times in 24 hours than he can!

Good luck, and thanks for sharing it with the group

Cornucopia

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

- that the definition of Electrical Works probably relates to work on the infrastructure of the property, not just to replacing appliances.

- that the Property Information Forms, whilst they form part of the contract, are rarely detailed or robust enough to stand as evidence in their own right. If there were issues with the absence of documentation, then these need to be chased-up prior to Exchange.

- that much electrical work does not need to be carried out by a registered company, nor by a qualified person.

- that the registration scheme for Electricians is neither statutory nor robust, unlike the Gas scheme. (And the Gas scheme is imperfect, too).

- that Solicitors do not have the expertise to check paperwork in detail (though there may be a marginal liability for not checking its existence).

- that "certificates" are issued only for specific kinds of work, and generally only by people authorised to issue them.


Overall, I think you may be in the (completely understandable) position where your expectations of the system are simply too high. Maybe Electrical safety should be treated more seriously in property transactions (though the only realistic way would be to expect vendors to undertake their own electrical safety survey prior to sale)?

missprice

sean1989 wrote: »

I have listened intently but people just keep saying its my fault because the survey wasn't done.

im sure that this can happen to many people in different aspects - Not just electrical etc.

even if i dont win anything - at least a lesson will be learnt for me and other FTB to research and look into things much more!

Its not your fault as such, but a survey would maybe have highlighted the need for a fuller check on the electrics.

I too am certain that this can happen to other people who also did not commission a full survey.
What lessons will be learned? There is this internet thing that is quite handy, am sure if one googled what to do when buying a house, a whole list of things would appear, one of which is to get a survey done.

Also 2k seems very high for your fees, you could have also googled avg fees for conveyancing and got some better idea.

Ignorance of house buying protocol really is no defense, when your spending so much money that you will spend 25 + years paying back, maybe better research is in order.

Not actually meaning that to sound harsh.