I'm now being sued by the purchaser

Riggyman

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Being arrogant and rude will not make you look smarter.

Why continue in your manner then?

silverwhistle

No, if you buy a car a dealer has an obligation to rectify problems that immediately manfest themselves, and there is normally a test in reasonableness in that a banger is not held to the same standard as a new car. In this case it was an old banger of a house and I think the buyer is being unreasonable, a view a court may also take.

The fit for purpose test doesn't apply for houses. As has been pointed out here the form is dated. It expresses an honest view at _that_ time. The buyer had opportunity to resolve at the later time of completion. In your car example, letting the dealer have it back to repair, but only for something that they should have known or suspected pre-existed from their own checks. In the case of this sale there was no such evidence or suspicion.

There's no warranty involved here either. A boiler can go wrong the day after an inspection. Annoying but not actionable, unless the honesty of the statement can be called into question in some way and there is evidence for this.

Miss_Samantha

silverwhistle wrote: »

The fit for purpose test doesn't apply for houses.

And that's not what's being discussed...

silverwhistle wrote: »

In your car example, letting the dealer have it back to repair, but only for something that they should have known or suspected pre-existed from their own checks

Unless they made specific representations, in which case they are bound by them in all cases.

OK, I give up... You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

The form includes clear notes. Researching the topic leads the same as the notes. You make your mind based on that.

Doozergirl

You must not put incorrect or incomplete information. That means don't lie and don't miss stuff off to avoid lying.

The buyer can rely on the form but cannot use it as a substitute for a survey. Which is essentially what they have done. They did not check the boiler at all, hence no one knew until after exchange.

There's also the question of a gap between the buyer actually taking possession (before completion) and the complaint. It's a bit dubious, taking possession in cold November and reporting it broken in cold December. No one wanted the heating on in the house before? They indicated their intention was to work on the heating system.

The seller has not deceived or led to deceive and I cannot see how the buyer can prove otherwise.

Even if the seller did have some liabilty (which I very much doubt) it is unreasonable to expect a brand new boiler in the typical probate house. The seller said the boiler included with the purchase was working on a certain date. The buyer was expecting that boiler. At the very best, that is all a buyer can expect; that boiler working. Certainly not a new one.

Kynthia

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

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.

Those examples are transactions with a business and therefore the seller is supposed to be a professional. As a result there are regulations they must abide by and additional protections for the buyer. Buying a house, or anything, from a private individual doesn't offer the same consumer protection.

Miss_Samantha

Kynthia wrote: »

Those examples are transactions with a business and therefore the seller is supposed to be a professional. As a result there are regulations they must abide by and additional protections for the buyer. Buying a house, or anything, from a private individual doesn't offer the same consumer protection.

No, those are not examples of a transaction with a business, which is irrelevant. This is about making a representation and forming a contract on that basis. That's contract law and misrepresentation.

If we contract that I sell you a working car I must deliver a working car. If we contract that I sell you a house with a working heating system I must deliver a house with a working heating system.

I'm really out now!

lewishardwick

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

No, those are not examples of a transaction with a business, which is irrelevant. This is about making a representation and forming a contract on that basis. That's contract law and misrepresentation.

If we contract that I sell you a working car I must deliver a working car. If we contract that I sell you a house with a working heating system I must deliver a house with a working heating system.

I'm really out now!

I hope you never buy a car in a private sale... You'll be in for a nasty surprise of you do...

googler

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Being arrogant and rude will not make you look smarter.

On balance, the view seems to be from the majority herein that the seller is signing as to the condition of the heating ON THE DATE he signed the TA6, and that his obligation thereafter is only to declare any CHANGE to this. All he appears to have done after this is to turn the heating off.

You seem to be out on your own in your interpretation of how the TA6 applies, as you seem to regard it as a cast-iron guarantee that everything is still the same as was stated on the TA6. Why is this? You state that you've shown the wording, but, as you can see from G_M's post above, the wording clearly states that the buyer should not regard the TA6 as a substitute for making their own enquiries.

saajan_12

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

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.

The position of a buyer:
CAR - somewhat consumer, often entering a dealership/shop, not the expert in the room
HOUSE - almost equal party with legal and expert advice expected

There are a few differences though.
The typical time between the seller checking and stating it is in good condition, during which the condition can change:
CAR - 1 day; HOUSE - 1-3 months

If a seller is expected to state on the date of the TR6 that the condition will be the same on exchange, that is by definition a guarantee.

The buyer can rely on the statement as *thats how it was on the date of the TR6*. It might therefore be unlikely to completely break down in the few months after that, but that's a risk the buyer takes. They may be able to sue if say they can prove it is in such poor condition with years of rust / blockage that it couldn't have been working a few months ago.

The_Earl_of_Streatham

All these discussions of evidence and analysis of legal minutiae rather obscure the fact that two months on there's no hint of an actual court case. Eight weeks ago they wrote to you claiming they had a case; nothing happened. They have recently come up with more stuff which they claim supports their case, why bother if they had a case back in July? It's nothing more than harassment.

All the stuff on here is interesting but you don't at present have to win any argument. If it were me I'd be ignoring them until they actually set a date.