I'm now being sued by the purchaser

movilogo

Make sure you attend the county court *. Then sue buyer for the distress caused

* = if you don't attend it will be heard in your absent and you might discover CCJ against your name years later!

Ivana_Tinkle

I don't pretend to any great legal knowledge, but surely even if your buyer wins in court you can't be forced to pay £4,500. For that price he could get a brand new, top-of-the-range boiler, plus a load of new pipework. Surely you'd only be expected to put him in the position he would have been in had the boiler worked (which presumably means with an old boiler due for replacement in the next couple of years) - essentially to pay the £300 for your guy to fix it.

And, FWIW, I've never had a surveyor test the heating system, even on a full buildings survey. All they ever do is comment that the boiler looks a bit old and may not meet current building regs.

mrginge

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

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.

What is the point of the nice clear 'Date:........' just next to the signature on the TA6?
Does this form part of the contract?
If it does then what is the relevance of that date?
If not, what is it there for?

saajan_12

I see there are two issues here: liability and damages.

LIABILITY: Are you liable for the (cost of) a working boiler. I think of this in cases based on WHEN the boiler broke

1) [after seller tested, but before exchange] In this case the liability depends on exactly what the TR6 form means
case A. you are certifying the condition ‘as far as you know’ -> it worked when last tested and you have been away since
Case B. you are certifying the condition on the date of the TR6 form -> If the buyer can establish a prior survey showing it was broken (not ‘heating should be checked’ as almost all surveys say that) then seller may be liable
Case C. you are warrantying the condition at exchange -> I think unlikely, as the seller would then have to check everything immediately prior to exchange. I think the form requires you to be honest & accurate but not provide a warranty. However if this is the case and if the buyer can establish a prior survey showing it was broken then seller may be liable

2) [between exchange & completion] -> usually seller is responsible to provide the property in broadly the same condition as it was in at exchange (the requirement to insure is for the buyer / mortgage company’s peace of mind, but doesn’t affect the seller’s responsibility). However in this case the KEY AGREEMENT likely states the buyer is responsible for the period between exchange and completion, as they (also) have control of the property. Even without this agreement, I think that if the boiler is established to have broken in this period, it is just as likely to have broken ‘naturally’ (so seller pays) as it is to have broken due to the buyer (‘s plumber) working on the heating system so the seller cannot be made to pay.

3) [between completion & buyer tested] -> clearly buyer responsibility

DAMAGES: Only IF you are liable, how much is the buyer owed as a result of this liability?
- Zero for temporary heaters / pain & suffering, as they could had it fixed (by you) prior to completion to mitigate these costs.
- Cost of repair/replacement – £300 if ‘its more likely than not’ that your plumber’s repair would have been sufficient. If not, whatever can be proved to be the cheapest cost to get a working boiler.

ikcdab

All these replies are very helpful indeed. Thank you to all

Miss_Samantha

mrginge wrote: »

What is the point of the nice clear 'Date:........' just next to the signature on the TA6?
Does this form part of the contract?
If it does then what is the relevance of that date?
If not, what is it there for?

Complain all you want.

Earlier I copy-pasted the exact wording of the notes on the form. If you don't agree with them take it to the Law Society, not me.

mrginge

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Complain all you want.

Earlier I copy-pasted the exact wording of the notes on the form. If you don't agree with them take it to the Law Society, not me.

I'm not complaining. I'm asking you what the point of the date on the form is.

You don't seem to know.

Perhaps someone who has a clue will be able to answer for you.

Miss_Samantha

Being arrogant and rude will not make you look smarter.

G_M

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

Although I'm not a conveyancing specialist, I question this.

The form asks:

c) Is the heating system in good working order?

If the seller accurately replies "Yes", that is a statement of fact at the time the seller gives the reply (date TA6 completed/signed). It does not appear to provide a warranty or guarantee, which is why the guidance to the buyer advises buyers to "undertake their own survey".

However a conveyancer/solicitor should be able to say whether answers provided in the TA6 both form part of the contract and provide some form of guarantee.

Miss_Samantha

I want to buy a car. I ask whether it is in good working order, the answer is 'yes' and I agree to buy it on that basis.
I go to the bank to get the cash, go back and pick it up. It does not work.

The seller then tells me: "Oh it worked at the time".

That's what you're saying here. If it worked that way consumers would be in trouble.

This has nothing to do with a guarantee. Obviously the note says that the buyer should check as it is much better than trying to sue afterwards. That doesn't mean that the buyer may not rely in the legal sense on the statement made by the seller, and that's exactly what the note says.