I'm now being sued by the purchaser

Miss_Samantha

The buyer change a radiator, and that's probably when they noticed that the heating did not work.

Kynthia wrote: »

So the judge will need to decide on probabilities and if anyone didn't meet their obligations. The judge could decide the OP should have checked before resigning the PIF or that they did know there was a possibility of a fault due to the previous purchaser's survey.

The buyer has no obligation to check. The seller agreed to sell with a working heating system...

teddysmum

The boiler working but radiators not heating could be the result of air in the system. Surely a non-professional removing and installing a radiator could very easily have introduced this air to the system?

mrginge

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

The buyer has no obligation to check. The seller agreed to sell with a working heating system...

No they didn't.
They agreed to sell with a heating system that was working on the date the TA6 form was signed and dated.

If the buyer (and their solicitor) wanted to rely on such information then that is their right and their **** up.

Miss_Samantha

The TA6 form is the basis for the contract. The buyer can rely on it and seek redress accordingly.

Quote from the form itself:

To the seller:

It is very important that your answers are accurate. If you give incorrect or incomplete information to the buyer (on this form or otherwise in writing or in conversation, whether through your estate agent or solicitor or directly to the buyer), the buyer may make a claim for compensation from you or refuse to complete the purchase.

To the buyer:

You are entitled to rely on the replies given to enquiries but in relation to the physical condition of the property, the replies should not be treated as a substitute for undertaking your own survey or making your own independent enquiries, which you are recommended to do.

If the seller states that the heating system is working then effectively that what he agrees to sell.

In addition, OP said that he told the buyer that he would fix it, which will likely be interpreted as having accepted that he was indeed liable.

DaftyDuck

As mrginge... I have been told by a "proper" solicitor (now out of business because of "intervention" for irregularities in finance, but that's beside the point here... ) that the statement of fact on the TA6 is my responsibility but only on the date I signed it. That the condition of sale on exchange is up to the buyer to establish, through instruction of surveys, or checking in person. That I should (and here's the catch) inform the buyer of any material change or inaccuracy that I become aware of prior to completion, but that I have no obligation to check anything further.

I asked for clarity (as did the buyer), as I was selling an empty probate property. Buyer & I were contented with each other, but sought clarity here in case there were unforeseen changes or errors (and there were not).

I also re-asked him on the last sale, as there had been an earthquake after the buyer's survey, but before exchange. His view: the buyer would be expected to make further enquiries or re-survey, and I should only inform them if I was aware of any "significant" damage or change (and I was not).

In the OP's case: The heating system was believed working at the time the TA6 was filled in. There was no call (in summer) for the vendor to further test the system, but the buyer was free to do so, should they wish, and that forms the contract.

Similar with a car MOT (or even house survey), it's a statement of condition at the time of the test. The vendor should inform of any change they become aware of, but it's not up to them to do additional surveys or tests (in matters they may not be an expert in), but the buyer is encouraged to do such tests himself, or instruct others to do so.

Miss_Samantha

DaftyDuck wrote: »

In the OP's case: The heating system was believed working at the time the TA6 was filled in. There was no call (in summer) for the vendor to further test the system, but the buyer was free to do so, should they wish, and that forms the contract.

You are contradicting yourself.

If it forms part of the contract then that's what it is: The seller contracted to sell a working heating system. As the TA6 form mentions.

mrginge

i bought a car a week ago. It had a clean, valid MOT from six months ago that said the tyres were of legal depth.
I relied on that MOT certificate and bought the car.

Today I find out that the tyres are not of legal depth and I have to buy new ones.

According to Miss Samantha's school of made up fantasy law I have the right to sue the seller. Is this correct or will I look like a lunatic?

Miss_Samantha

mrginge wrote: »

i bought a car a week ago. It had a clean, valid MOT from six months ago that said the tyres were of legal depth.
I relied on that MOT certificate and bought the car.

Today I find out that the tyres are not of legal depth and I have to buy new ones.

The current issue is nothing like a MOT.

A better analogy would be: You want to buy a car, the seller shows it to you and put it in writing that it is in good condition and works.
You accept and buys it.

Now, if it turns out that it does not work, then the seller is in breach of contract.

mrginge wrote: »

According to Miss Samantha's school of made up fantasy law I have the right to sue the seller. Is this correct or will I look like a lunatic?

Tell that to the law society, not to me, since they are the ones who publish the TA6 form and the notes it includes.

david1951

Wasn't the plan to ignore this person?

The second survey probably just says that the heating was switched off, rather than 'defective'.

davidmcn

mrginge wrote: »

According to Miss Samantha's school of made up fantasy law I have the right to sue the seller. Is this correct or will I look like a lunatic?

It's correct if your contract to purchase the car includes a warranty by the seller that (as at the date you conclude the contract) the car is still in the same condition as disclosed in the MoT certificate.