I'm now being sued by the purchaser

bobobski

steampowered wrote: »

Just so that you are aware, evidence of what you have offered to settle a claim is actually inadmissible as evidence. The judge can't and won't look at it when deciding on the case.

The reason for this rule is that the court wants people to settle their cases. The court doesn't want people to worry that they are damaging their case by making settlement offers.

It would only be admissible as evidence after the main dispute has been decided, when the judge comes to decide on who should pay legal costs (if any). For example if the claimant is awarded less than £1,000 the Op could legitimately claim that bringing the claim was unreasonable and that he should be paid costs at the litigant in person rate of £18 an hour for time spent on the claim.

Relevant only to Part 36 offers, no? My civil lit is fuzzy, but I thought that was the whole point of bringing in Part 36.

TBagpuss

steampowered wrote: »

Just so that you are aware, evidence of what you have offered to settle a claim is actually inadmissible as evidence. The judge can't and won't look at it when deciding on the case.

The reason for this rule is that the court wants people to settle their cases. The court doesn't want people to worry that they are damaging their case by making settlement offers.

It would only be admissible as evidence after the main dispute has been decided, when the judge comes to decide on who should pay legal costs (if any). For example if the claimant is awarded less than £1,000 the Op could legitimately claim that bringing the claim was unreasonable and that he should be paid costs at the litigant in person rate of £18 an hour for time spent on the claim.

Well, if the offer was a PArt 36 offer or made 'without prejudice', yes. If ot was an open offer (which if it was made in a letter which wasn't marked 'without prejudice' then it would be admissable. However, if it clearly states that it is purely as a gesture of goodwill then it may help OP more than the other side, as it would show that he was trying to resolve matters but not that he has admitted any liability

TBagpuss

ikcdab wrote: »

Many thanks for all of the replies, very useful.

The claim is for a reduction in the value of the property not for a replacement boiler. They claim that it was worth less than they paid for it because the heating wasn't working. Hence the £3000. They paid £182000.

Same thing. If the value of the property with an old-but-funtioning system is £182,000 then the reduction in value is whatever it would cost to get the old system functioning again (i.e. the cost of repair and any relevant making good) not the cost of replacing or upgrading the system.

And if the system is so old it can't be economically repaired and a replacement was necessary then I think that the court would still sya you don't get to claim betterment and to have a whole new systems, you get a contribution based on having had to replace slightly earlier than expected.

david1951

Kynthia wrote: »

You can never be sure how court will go so try to avoid and if not make sure you get advice, bring your evidence, make sure all reports/statements are signed, and bring witnesses wherever you can.

I would like to emphasise this. The judge can only deal with assertions that are supported using evidence. Anything you assert (e.g., "I was non-resident") has to be supported by evidence (e.g., a witness statement from someone you were resident with), otherwise the judge is likely to ignore it.


Don't underestimate the amount of evidence you will need...

ikcdab

Thank you for the helpful replies. My offers to settle were headed "Without prejudice save for costs" and in every case I have made it clear that it is an offer made without accepting liability.

I have been fully open on this forum. My area of concern is that I was asked to reconfirm the statements in the TA6 form some 6 months after originally signing it. I confirmed that the statements on the form were still valid. I did this without conducting a test of the heating system. I assumed that it would still be OK as it had been OK in May. And of course nobody does know when the fault occured. It could easily have happened after I had confirmed the TA6 form or at some other date. So to be completely open, it is possible that after switching the heating off in June a fault occurred shortly afterwards and that when I reconfirmed the TA6 form the heating was actually faulty at that time. Or of course it might not have been.....

mrginge

ikcdab wrote: »

Thank you for the helpful replies. My offers to settle were headed "Without prejudice save for costs" and in every case I have made it clear that it is an offer made without accepting liability.

I have been fully open on this forum. My area of concern is that I was asked to reconfirm the statements in the TA6 form some 6 months after originally signing it. I confirmed that the statements on the form were still valid. I did this without conducting a test of the heating system. I assumed that it would still be OK as it had been OK in May. And of course nobody does know when the fault occured. It could easily have happened after I had confirmed the TA6 form or at some other date. So to be completely open, it is possible that after switching the heating off in June a fault occurred shortly afterwards and that when I reconfirmed the TA6 form the heating was actually faulty at that time. Or of course it might not have been.....

Having just read this I re-read your OP.

My assertion earlier in this thread was that you signed the TA and the buyer therefore accepted it as being truthful at the original time of signing.

Now I obviously missed the part in your OP where you stated

..However, we did not check it when we resigned them later.

So clearly you did not know if the heating was working at the time you signed them for the second time.

So the purchaser relied on your up-to-date statement, found a problem, you acknowledged the problem and offered a solution, the purchaser counter offered and you then did nothing.

The fact that you reconfirmed a working system, (presumably a lot closer to exchange date than six months previously) has probably screwed you.

ikcdab

Thanks for the response and I understand what you ate saying. Do the facts that the purchaser didn't have a survey and that the purchaser denied me the opportunity for a remedy count for nothing?

Marktheshark

£4500 is not a repair, it is a full central heating installation with a life span of 25 years.
You must defend in full, they can not claim a betterment after rejecting your offer of a repair.

Obtain a sworn affidavit from a solicitor that the heating was working when the form was signed.

Do not make part offers, defend the full claim value.

Argue at Court if need be and I mean argue, you are expected to do so, that demanding you pay for new central heating for what might be a fuse is plain daft.

G_M

ikcdab wrote: »

.... My area of concern is that I was asked to reconfirm the statements in the TA6 form some 6 months after originally signing it. I confirmed that the statements on the form were still valid. I did this without conducting a test of the heating system. I assumed that it would still be OK as it had been OK in May......

I'm sure this point was discussed in detail some 6 pages ago!

This is the weak point in your case.

What you did 6 months previously (I believe with a previous aborted sale? Not that it matters) is totally irrelevant.

What matters is the answer you gave at the time of 'confirming' and submitting the TA6 to the buyers.

And it seems that at that point in time you had no real idea if the heating was working, and yet you said that yes it was (rather than saying either 'Don't know' or 'buyer should rely on their own inspection.'

Miss_Samantha

Indeed, as been said previously, when a buyer (of a house, car, etc.) asks "does this work?" and you reply 'yes' then you are on the hook if it in fact does not.