Seller lied on property questionaire - Electrical fire

sean1989_2

AlexMac wrote: »

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!

Is there a figure?

Jhoney_2

sean1989 wrote: »

Not entirely correct -

1) i was under the assumption that all the sureveying was complete - me or the partner never recall being offered a small or full survey nor the option to change anything - it was always " we will deal with it" from the conveyancers

Why did you not ask for one? commission one personally? Come on MSE as now, to read what the process should be?

2) i questioned my ECU when i changed electricity suppliers - they told me it was new in 2007 ( again post 2005 but no documentation) so why would i then think " needs to be changed"

Not changed, but checked? That was still 8 years ago!

3) if we really wanted to be petty - my nan ( aged 86 ) has the same ECU and no issues - simply put because she doesnt go chopping and changing all the wires

4) the cooker has been rerouted upstairs - allegation but seems pretty strong when you have no cables heading to the cooker - a big hole leading from the cooker to an isolation box that has a hole leading to the fusebox - but only loose cables all cut. - the company providing the invoice of this being fitted in 2009 are not electricty safe registered

5) the fact that if you try following the fusebox instructions you turn off random areas of the house - example the shower controls the upstairs lights - the waster heater controls sockets - clearly messed with

A surveyor would have seen and done all of this had you commissioned one.

6) im not an electrician so never would have opened the ECU to check that the owners hadnt made a ticking timebomb.

Nor are most of us - So you employ one.

7) ECU load is 60 amps - presumably they added all the wires into the same slots to save on adding more breakers - yet there is over 100amps in breakers alone and then numerous wires into each breaker...

8) the previous owners are clearly idiots - and quite frankly i dont know how they could possibly sleep knowing they put lives of 2 people at risk

No excuse for their possible misinformation, but they put themselves at great risk for years - perhaps without even realising it. They probably assumed/were advised that you would get your own professional checks done.

Firstly, glad to know you are all okay health wise from this incident.

However, I cannot believe that you essentially allowed an Estate Agent and a conveyancer to control your purchase to such a degree that you allowed potentially life threatening harm to befall you. See above.

You could have done so much more to prevent this than you seem able to accept e.g better buying knowledge, better communication with conveyancing team and what they were actually not/doing for you, better follow up on enquiries.

The time to have done all of this checking which you have found yourself doing anyway - was before you exchanged.

Get an independent Full Structural Survey done by a RICS accredited surveyor without delay and contact your insurance company as suggested many times already.

You are spending far too much time on the wrong end of this problem at the moment.

sean1989_2

Jhoney wrote: »

Firstly, glad to know you are all okay health wise from this incident.

However, I cannot believe that you essentially allowed an Estate Agent and a conveyancer to control your purchase to such a degree that you allowed potentially life threatening harm to befall you. See above.

You could have done so much more to prevent this than you seem able to accept e.g better buying knowledge, better communication with conveyancing team and what they were actually not/doing for you, better follow up on enquiries.

The time to have done all of this checking which you have found yourself doing anyway - was before you exchanged.

Get an independent Full Structural Survey done by a RICS accredited surveyor without delay and contact your insurance company as suggested many times already.

You are spending far too much time on the wrong end of this problem at the moment.

I do have the insurance company visiting us soon (tonight/tomorrow) - i will be requesting a survey as part of the claim ( i doubt they would want to pay it though - still worth asking!)

i realise the mistakes made now - and what research should have been done and i understand i too join the idiot club for that.

however, i am still convinced that regardless of my errors - their errors should not be excused

The conveyancers have confirmed that they have contacted the previous sellers solicitors for clarification ( if any ) can be received.

As mentioned in previous posts - they may have all the paperwork in which case i cant do anything - but there could also be some issues that they own up to... who knows

i cant stress that the solicitor i spoke to will only take the case on following the conveyancers response ( my guess is they are expecting a final resolution here and then wouldn't touch the case) but again there might not be in which case something could be instigated.

Jhoney_2

AdrianC wrote: »

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?

It seems the conveyancing team slipped him the 'disclaimer' version' which allowed vendor to answer honestly enough. They were acting for both parties.

Rule = Never use same conveyancing as vendor.

missprice

sean1989 wrote: »

I do have the insurance company visiting us soon (tonight/tomorrow) - i will be requesting a survey as part of the claim ( i doubt they would want to pay it though - still worth asking!)

i realise the mistakes made now - and what research should have been done and i understand i too join the idiot club for that.

however, i am still convinced that regardless of my errors - their errors should not be excused

If they did the wiring themselves then no it should not be excuses, but really what are the chances? They most likely employed someone to do whatever was necessary to get then kitchen/shower fitted.
Its rare that people diy kitchens and bathrooms.

I had a builder in that neglected to tell me that building control would need to sign off a wall taken out, now I knew that B C needed to do their thing, but if you don't know and someone flat out says its all OK, you tend to believe the experienced one.

Just say I had taken the builder at face value and not got B C involved, when I later came to sell the house, one I could forget about the wall and honestly say no work had been carried out, two I could say building work carried out but its all above board. Neither would be a lie to me.

Jhoney_2

sean1989 wrote: »

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

I would agree if this were a tenanted property, but as they lived there - that was their stupidity/ingorance or risk to take - as is their prerogative.

sean1989_2

Jhoney wrote: »

I would agree if this were a tenanted property, but as they lived there - that was their stupidity/ingorance or risk to take - as is their prerogative.

my opinion is one of two things

Either 1) they didn't have a clue about the quality of the wiring and how dangerous everything was

or

2) they were well aware and just took the risk - maybe they disconnected a few breakers at night

Judging by everything else - i'm swayed towards 2. quite frankly they lied about flooding as well and only about 4 other things that they declared as fit, but are not.

Jhoney_2

sean1989 wrote: »

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

So no giving back the house is likely. Consider too the possible other innocent person whom your vendor may have bought from. Will they have to give back the money to allow vendor to repurchase yours?

But note that even given the lack of declaration, there was a " no, to follow" provided and no due diligence was carried out at all.

sean1989_2

Jhoney wrote: »

[/B]
But note that even given the lack of declaration, there was a " no, to follow" provided and no due diligence was carried out at all.

This is why my first complaint is with the conveyancers
The fact that the "questionnaire" doesn't seem to be the form everyone else has mentioned,
The fact they we both used the same company just seems a little " off " with all this

We never really were guided at all through this and i know i should have researched this as much as i have researched how to fix it!

Jhoney_2

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!

Not your fault OP, but your responsibility which is a very different thing altogether.