Ombudsmen offer no protection for house-buyers...

AdrianC

Pamu wrote: »

Thanks Adrian C. The solicitor did have all the information - they had the surveyor's report that stated that the solicitor needed to check that Buildings Regs were in place, they also had our mortgage offer, which said the same, and they had the file from the previous solicitor which included correspondence about whether Buildings Regs were in place. So they knew that there was a loft conversion and that they needed to check Buildings Regs. They just didn't do it...

Ooookay... So why did you let them exchange contracts without a satisfactory answer to that...?

But let's go back a step.

If the vendor had been honest and said "No, there's no BR in place.", what then?

The usual answer to that would be to take out an indemnity policy to cover the chance of there being any legal comeback from the lack of sign-off. Except that's usually a waste of money, because there's a very limited period in which the council can raise an objection. It wouldn't cover the costs of making good any faults. No vendor is going to allow you to dismantle the house before purchase to check if the steels are present or not.

So - without a BR certificate, would you have walked away from that property? Honestly...? Now again, without the benefit of the 20/20 hindsight...?

Because, if not, then the solicitor's omission doesn't actually make much difference.

Pamu wrote: »

especially when his survey went to the trouble of telling me that the cat-flap had some dry rot in it. (which is hardly a significant point!).

Eeek! It certainly IS a significant point... The catflap isn't, but if there's dry rot there, there WILL be dry rot in other places. And dry rot is not to be trifled with...

Nobbie1967

Pamu wrote: »

Thanks Adrian C. The solicitor did have all the information - they had the surveyor's report that stated that the solicitor needed to check that Buildings Regs were in place, they also had our mortgage offer, which said the same, and they had the file from the previous solicitor which included correspondence about whether Buildings Regs were in place. So they knew that there was a loft conversion and that they needed to check Buildings Regs. They just didn't do it...

I don't understand the legal ombudsman's ruling if the mortgage offer stated that building regs needed to be checked then why didn't the solicitor do this. I was under the impression that it was the job of the solicitor to ensure that the conditions on the mortgage offer were adhered to such as 'vacant possession' etc. Did the the mortgage offer mention building regs specifically for the loft conversion? I would expect it to after they had seen the survey which would have mentioned the loft conversion.

I think seeking good legal advice is the way ahead here and pursue the solicitors. If you have a good case, well presented they will probably offer to settle out of court, if they don't offer to settle, they probably don't think you have a good case, you'd need to be cautious about proceeding any further in this case.

Pamu_2

Dear G_M - yes I did instruct the solicitor to check. They had a copy of the surveyors report, which stated they needed to check it, and the mortgage offer, which stated they needed to check it. They also had the form that the sellers filled out stating that there was a loft conversion from 2007, and our correspondence with the previous solicitors on the matter.

The EA was also at fault (as The Property Ombudsman confirmed), under the Property Misrepresentation Act.

alchemist.1

Sounds like a solicitors negligence claim to me. Unfortunately it will cost you to pursue the matter.
Have you complained about the second law firm?

Bigger issue is going to be proving the loss. Was your offer based on there being full buildings regulations for the converted loft? Was it communicated to the estate agent or anyone else that was the case(in writing)?

Pamu_2

Hi Thrugelmir - we paid for a full buildings survey on the house (not the cheaper homebuyers survey), and received a 43 page report, which went into extensive detail about a lot of issues with the house so that we could make an informed decision. I find it extraordinary to discover that obvious signs (such as the staircase) were missed. I am not a surveyor, and have no knowledge of building construction and condition. I therefore paid for a professional to undertake the work for me.

Pamu_2

AdrianC wrote: »

Ooookay... So why did you let them exchange contracts without a satisfactory answer to that...?



So - without a BR certificate, would you have walked away from that property? Honestly...? Now again, without the benefit of the 20/20 hindsight...?

Because, if not, then the solicitor's omission doesn't actually make much difference.



Eeek! It certainly IS a significant point... The catflap isn't, but if there's dry rot there, there WILL be dry rot in other places. And dry rot is not to be trifled with...

We would have walked away once we had found out the implications - it was before the housing market went mad, so we would have had time to look around again.

The dry rot.... I think that's because of a damp issue that we need to get sorted (need a French Drain and a new damp proof course). Hopefully not a bigger problem.

Surrey_EA

Pamu wrote: »

Dear G_M - yes I did instruct the solicitor to check. They had a copy of the surveyors report, which stated they needed to check it, and the mortgage offer, which stated they needed to check it. They also had the form that the sellers filled out stating that there was a loft conversion from 2007, and our correspondence with the previous solicitors on the matter.

The EA was also at fault (as The Property Ombudsman confirmed), under the Property Misrepresentation Act.

Your solicitor was clearly "more at fault". They had all of the above information available to them confirming to them that a loft conversion had been carried out at the property, and yet they still were not able to verify whether the necessary building regulation approval was obtained.

Presumably your solicitor obtained a local authority search? If so, any building regulations affecting the property would be noted on the search.

I'm assuming your purchase was at least a couple of years ago, as the Property Misdescriptions Act (1991) came to an end in 2013.

Pamu_2

alchemist.1 wrote: »

Sounds like a solicitors negligence claim to me. Unfortunately it will cost you to pursue the matter.
Have you complained about the second law firm?

Bigger issue is going to be proving the loss. Was your offer based on there being full buildings regulations for the converted loft? Was it communicated to the estate agent or anyone else that was the case(in writing)?

This is our complaint against the second law firm (the first firm has no liability, because they did not exchange). That's a good question about proving the loss...

Pamu_2

Surrey_EA wrote: »

Presumably your solicitor obtained a local authority search? If so, any building regulations affecting the property would be noted on the search.

I'm assuming your purchase was at least a couple of years ago, as the Property Misdescriptions Act (1991) came to an end in 2013.

That's very helpful, thanks. So, we purchased the house in 2013 - the offer was made in May and we exchanged in October. Do you know what month the PM Act ended?

Surrey_EA

Pamu wrote: »

That's very helpful, thanks. So, we purchased the house in 2013 - the offer was made in May and we exchanged in October. Do you know what month the PM Act ended?

I think it was towards the end of 2013, but I'll have a quick check.