I'm now being sued by the purchaser

Fosterdog

I would say that regardless of whether or not it was working when the form was signed the fact OP offered to get it fixed and was turned down should mean the buyer has no recourse, they asked for a £2000 reduction which was declined and they chose to complete the sale anyway knowing full well that there was a problem.

It would also mean that even if OP was liable the buyers would have to mitigate their losses, if OP could get it fixed for £300 but the buyer chose a £800 repair then the buyer should pay the extra £500. OP shouldn't have to pay for the extra electric and cost of buying heaters because they are all costs the buyer chose to add by not letting OP carry out the repair before completion. Same goes for a payment for pain and discomfort, in the UK it is almost unheard of to get payments for things like that from a major company let along a private individual. I doubt there was any actual pain and suffering involved and any inconveinience was again down to the buyers own choice of not having the repair done when offered.

ikcdab

So in March 2015 we signed the TA6 form and correctly and truthfully stated that the heating worked. The heating ran until May or June 2015 when we switched it off for the summer. In October we were asked if we were aware of any changes to the information on the TA6 form. I did not run the heating to see if it still worked - i made the assumption that as it was running in May/June then it was still OK. So i ticked the box to say that i was not aware of any changes.

I think that this was a reasonable assumption but I am happy to be corrected by posters on here if you believe I was at fault then.

lincroft1710

I would say that is not a reasonable assumption, after 4 months anything could have happened.

Nobbie1967

You are only responsible for answering the questions honestly and informing the solicitor if you become aware of any changes that would affect the answers given. The TA6 is part of the contract in the sense that the answers must be honest, but not a guarantee that all items will be in the same condition at completion.

It is for the buyer to decide whether further checks should be carried out. Where the property is left empty for a period it would seem advisable to carry out further checks prior to exchange.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Who buys an old, run-down property that's been empty for ages and doesn't budget for a new boiler?

lincroft1710

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Who buys an old, run-down property that's been empty for ages and doesn't budget for a new boiler?

The guy who bought the OP's late mother's house.

davidmcn

ikcdab wrote: »

I think that this was a reasonable assumption but I am happy to be corrected by posters on here if you believe I was at fault then.

It's reasonable for me to assume that my boiler is still working now on the basis it was working this morning. It would seem reckless for me to assume that it's still working if I haven't visited my house for five months (or at least, not to clarify that that's what I mean when I tick "yes").

keith969

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

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.

Except in this case the equivalent is the buyer took the engine to bits and then finds it won't start.

There may be an element of doubt that the CH worked when the seller signed the last TA6 (the buyer does not know that it was not tested at this time - unless the seller told him?). But there is also a significant chance that the buyer caused the system to fail during his post-exchange access and modifications to the system.

I would not ask for a copy of the survey the buyer has mentioned - wait and see what your solicitor has to say.

DaftyDuck

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

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.

There is no contradiction. The TA6 states the system was working (in the best non-expert view) of the vendor at that time. The vendor further assures (although this isn't strictly relevant) that (again to the best of his knowledge) the system is the same on completion as at exchange. If the vendor became aware of a material change after TA6-filling, then he should inform the buyer, via his solicitor. The TA6, if I recall is explicit in suggesting the buyer make his own enquiries, and an expert opinion on the boiler is one such enquiry.

It is (for example) extremely common for a heating system to fail to start fully after a summer rest. Sometimes it's a minor problem, like air in the system, sometimes it's a complete failure.... (error f91 on a Vaillant 937 combi was a common problem - I had 3 in rentals, all fitted at the same time, all a "proper" fault in the pump or summat, all easily rectified by refilling the circuit on first restart to help spin the something or other....)

Were I to sell, I wouldn't be fussed to check the heating system was air-free and would fire first time. I would declare the Vaillant problems (now fixed under warranty). However, I would never fire the heating up in June, just before exchange, merely to ensure it was still working. I would be quite happy should the buyer turn up to do so, or if he sent a heating engineer to do so.

Similar with the point on my last sale; there was an earthquake between the buyer's survey and exchange, and the solicitor was adamant that it was up to the buyer (who lived two streets away and whose house was undoubtedly rattled too) to make further enquiries as to any damages. If I could see anything, I should tell, but I should have no need to look in the loft, check the drains, or examine the plumbing for leaks.

Miss_Samantha

DaftyDuck wrote: »

There is no contradiction. The TA6 states the system was working (in the best non-expert view) of the vendor at that time.

According to you the form has no purpose because it basically does not make any difference. Therefore this contradicts that statement that it forms part of the contract. It also contradicts the notes on the form itself.