Seller lied on property questionaire - Electrical fire

cattermole

sean1989 wrote: »

sir...your forum skills are that of a jedi... its hard to even

But no - what im saying is surely something should be implemented that would result in the important parts of the house being checked - example, the owners have not tampered with the electricity or gas supply before leaving. These are potentially life threatening if they have done so - trust me - the day you have an electrician turn around and tell you that your lucky to be alive because of the botched up job on the CU - then you can have a go at me for wanting some sort of answer to what has happened...

Heres an update anyway,

1) Countrywide have started investigating the complaint and have written to the sellers solicitors for answers

2) The electric board have visted the property tonight as something i had not spotted previously - the securtiy wire was not on the main fuse box - they have come out and investigated but cant find any issues with the main fuse - they wasnt too happy that someone had snooped in there but hey ho

3) the home insurance are coming in the morning at 10:30 to assess the issues and hopefully book in a fix asap

4) based on the report of the intial electrician, the bills, and the serial number of the shower - plus the insurance report i will obtain tomorrow - an independent solicitor is more than happy to take on the case to seek some compensation - remember whilst the electric is the main issue - there are other areas that lies have been told:
Was not made aware they had planning permission declined for the extension - yet its built - theres an insurance policy thats been sent with the final paperwork making reference to this
the garden floods in the rain due to no drainage etc

In my OP i was talking about the electric quite frankly because its in my opinion the most major part of the lies

Re your point about the extension they have put a policy in place and this is acceptable. It should have all been listed in your pre-contract document, which you would have had to sign off have you got this?

It would also cover any other breaches of Building Regulations if you have an indemnity policy for lack of Planning/Building Regs so would include the electrics. However it only covers you against the Council pursuing lack of planning/building regs not any damage/loss through any lack of the work being done properly.

cattermole

ManuelG wrote: »

Minority, or majority?

Anyway, all I'd say to the OP is to be absolutely sure their solicitors think they have a good chance of a result, as opposed to the abstract concept of having a case they can make. One has a chance of success, the other could cost more than the repairs...

Sometimes pragmatism has to take over from idealism.

LOL I noticed my error and corrected

I agree totally, pragmatism does have to rule which is pretty much what I was saying in my final sentence.

Another solicitor could also take the OP to the cleaners!

Jaffa_cake

Davesnave wrote: »

I haven't read the entire thread, but I just want to point out that no one should presume anything when purchasing a house.

The conveyancer has certain checks and duties to perform, but they aren't all-knowing. The purchaser also has a duty to exercise due diligence. There are many extras that may be added to the basic survey and conveyance process, like an electrical check, and it's up to the purchaser to instruct with these.

Also, if the title plan doesn't accurately reflect the property offered for sale, how will the conveyancer realise this if the purchaser, who has seen the property, doesn't spot the error?

It's should always be a team effort.

You should not have completed until you had every "t" crossed, and every "i" dotted.

Also need some buyer beware.

cattermole

Jaffa_cake wrote: »

You should not have completed until you had every "t" crossed, and every "i" dotted.

Also need some buyer beware.

Yes but hardened MSE poster's know this and perhaps they sometimes expect OP's to have the same knowledge they do.

You are also paying your solicitor to dot every "i" and cross every "t" that is a FACT.

I do think given some of the posts I've read on here a lot more people should be making complaints to their Solicitors and following the procedures to do so.

sean1989_2

cattermole wrote: »

I may be in the minority, but I can understand how upset you would be, and be so persistent in your posting, it isn't just the cost it's the fact their could have been a fire or worse still a death. It's a way of venting apart from anything else

Well yeah its a good way to vent - plus if someone else comes searching for something similar - at least theres something to read.

cattermole wrote: »

If the solicitors used the wrong forms this is an error and potentially a serious one.

Honestly the form is a copied and pasted document - its not on headed paper - its not titled - its not even colour - its a black and white print or photo copy. When people were talking about TA6 or whatever i had no idea at all what it was. When looking at the form... The questions relating to electric are:

4.1 Have any of the following changes taken place to any part of the property? (vi) "Electrical works"

10.12 Has the whole or any part of the electical installation been tested by a qualifed and registered electrician?
10.13 Has the property been rewired or had any electircal installations since 1 January 2005.


Anyone shine ideas on what version of the form this is? Maybe this is why people were confused - i wasnt aware there were many versions - i thought this was the norm

With everything else you mention,

Yes it was the same company - just across the street is the other offices

I complained to countrywide first and labelled this as formal complaint with my concerns

We do have a breakdown somewhere - again so much paperwork so ill find it to see whats happening with the fees

jbainbridge

Difficult though it is to say I have a small amount of sympathy with the OP. The vendor ticked NO to any electrical work since 2005 ... patently work was undertaken and it was substandard.

Much though I disagree with Part P - it was introduced to stop this very situation. As I understand it ANY work in the bathroom is notifiable. Whoever conducted the work should be prosecuted.

cattermole

sean1989 wrote: »

Well yeah its a good way to vent - plus if someone else comes searching for something similar - at least theres something to read.



Honestly the form is a copied and pasted document - its not on headed paper - its not titled - its not even colour - its a black and white print or photo copy. When people were talking about TA6 or whatever i had no idea at all what it was. When looking at the form... The questions relating to electric are:

4.1 Have any of the following changes taken place to any part of the property? (vi) "Electrical works"

10.12 Has the whole or any part of the electical installation been tested by a qualifed and registered electrician?
10.13 Has the property been rewired or had any electircal installations since 1 January 2005.


Anyone shine ideas on what version of the form this is? Maybe this is why people were confused - i wasnt aware there were many versions - i thought this was the norm

With everything else you mention,

Yes it was the same company - just across the street is the other offices

I complained to countrywide first and labelled this as formal complaint with my concerns

We do have a breakdown somewhere - again so much paperwork so ill find it to see whats happening with the fees

It won't be on their headed paper it should say "Law Society Property Information Form" the latest edition is 3rd in brackets to the right (not sure when this form came into being no doubt other posters are). With a stamp at the bottom Law Society. It could be photocopied etc and will be in mono.

Your numbering does not make sense because 4.1 Electrical on any form would not then jump to 10.12 etc. perhaps you should put a jpg of the form up including the front page?

On the current form Electricty is covered under 12 and all the sub numbers under that i.e. 12.1 etc.

EDIT: it says at the bottom of the form it is current the 3rd Edition since 2013 with a reference and /2013

You can see the document that should have been used here:

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

sean1989_2

cattermole wrote: »

It won't be on their headed paper it should say "Law Society Property Information Form" the latest edition is 3rd in brackets to the right (not sure when this form came into being no doubt other posters are). With a stamp at the bottom Law Society. It could be photocopied etc and will be in mono.

Your numbering does not make sense because 4.1 Electrical on any form would not then jump to 10.12 etc. perhaps you should put a jpg of the form up including the front page?

On the current form Electricty is cover under 12 and all the sub numbers under that i.e. 12.1 etc.

It litterally is titled " SELLERS PROPERTY QUESTIONNAIRE" - There are no logos - no versions - nothing....

This is the only document but still the sections involved are titled the same as the TA6 forms that were posted ... im thinkin this is "countrywides" own form?

That allowed?

cattermole

I would say they are on very very sticky ground if they have not used the correct Law Society property information forms.

Despite what other posters say about you should have done this that and the other.

I also find it very bizarre they managed to get this past the lender!!

You say it is the same as the TA6 but it isn't given your referencing to numbering and your previous quotes to this effect, so which is it?

As I said post up your Seller's Information form!

I know Estate Agents do a similar form ours certainly does (although this is nothing to do with the solicitors!) are you confusing the two? Or did they use the same form Estate Agents use as they are Estate Agents as well? Did you buy the property through Nationwide?

Somewhere you should have a Property Information Form with the Law Society logo on.

sean1989_2

cattermole wrote: »

I would say they are on very very sticky ground if they have not used the correct Law Socieity property information forms.

Despite what other posters say about you should have done this that and the other.

I also find it very bizarre they managed to get this past the lender!!

You say it is the same as the TA6 but it isn't given your referencing to numbering and your previous quotes to this effect.

Here is the exact titles of each section - Which makes me think it relates to the TA6 form hoever - it clearly has other sections and does not reflect the same criteria with some questions..... hmmmm

SELLERS PROPERTY QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Boundaries
2.Disputes
3. Notices
4. Changes to the property
5. Gurantees ETC.
6. Insurance
7. Environmental Matters
8. Facilities - Rights to informal agreements
9. Occupiers
10. Services
11. Outgoings
12. Service Suppliers
13. Completion
14. Interests and rights affecting the property

This is the ONLY form we have relating to any questions asked on the property from the sellers

We enquired through bridgfords who sorted out the coneyanceing through countrywide - who the seller also used.

Santander slapped the mortgage on us