I'm now being sued by the purchaser

thesaint

Mojisola wrote: »

The heating only stopped working after the purchaser did some work in the house (could they be responsible for the boiler not working?).

The vendor offered to have the heating fixed.

The purchaser refused and went ahead, knowing the heating wasn't working.

I can't see why they think they can make the vendor pay up now.

Like I said, I am a complete amateur in regards to house sales, but in my eyes(and the purchaser in this instance), the seller is responsible for the property until it has changed hands.

The seller said in their paperwork that the boiler works. They were informed it wasn't, and needed to rectify this.

Once they were informed(in my view)they needed to negotiate or fix it. I don't understand how doing nothing is an option.

I see the buyer having entry as a red-herring.

fairy_lights

ikcdab wrote: »

It's £2k for the hearing. Approx £500 for additional electricity to heat the house. A sum to buy electric heaters and £1500 for pain and discomfort....

I don't see how they can claim for the cost of extra electricity to heat the house - think of all the money they've saved on gas :rotfl:
Sounds like a bunch of chancers who've realised the renovations are going to cost more than they expected and think they've found an easy source of cash.

davidmcn

ikcdab wrote: »

It's £2k for the heating. Approx £500 for additional electricity to heat the house. A sum to buy electric heaters and £1500 for pain and discomfort....

Apart from anything else, they have a duty to mitigate their costs, and could have avoided the bits in bold by accepting the opportunity to have it fixed before completion.

paddy's_mum

thesaint wrote: »

Like I said, I am a complete amateur in regards to house sales, but in my eyes(and the purchaser in this instance), the seller is responsible for the property until it has changed hands.

The seller said in their paperwork that the boiler works. They were informed it wasn't, and needed to rectify this.

Once they were informed(in my view)they needed to negotiate or fix it

They did offer to fix the problem. They said they would engage and pay for a plumber. That offer was declined. It is now becoming evident that the purchasers saw more value in suing later

I believe that judges won't allow someone to be financially advantaged after they have shot themselves in the foot!

thesaint

paddy's_mum wrote: »

They did offer to fix the problem. They said they would engage and pay for a plumber. That offer was declined. It is now becoming evident that the purchasers saw more value in suing later

I believe that judges won't allow someone to be financially advantaged after they have shot themselves in the foot!

They didn't need to "offer" anything. They should have done it, as it was their house that was being misrepresented.

I am not arguing the (inflated) cost.
Are you saying that the buyer does indeed have a case?

Okrib

No need to reply. The buyer has no case whatsoever.

Mojisola

Mojisola wrote: »

The vendor offered to have the heating fixed.

The purchaser refused and went ahead, knowing the heating wasn't working.

thesaint wrote: »

The seller said in their paperwork that the boiler works. They were informed it wasn't, and needed to rectify this.

Once they were informed(in my view)they needed to negotiate or fix it. I don't understand how doing nothing is an option.

The seller offered to fix it. The buyer refused.

When they signed the final paperwork, they knew they were buying a house with a non-functioning boiler.

david1951

Sorry for the late reply. My comments just echo those above.

A solicitor wouldn't touch this with a barge pole and it sounds like they can't afford one anyway. They are clearly annoyed and who knows what sort of person they are. On the one hand they could be saying "let's just see if we can get them to pay something", and on the other they may be deluded and thinking "it's definitely their fault I am in this mess, so I am going to pursue this as far as it will go".

Either way you aren't going to give them any money and my response would be the same:

Ignore.

If you do actually get sued (with court papers, and a case no.), then let us know. Cross that bridge if and when we come to it.

TBagpuss

I think they would struggle on the basis that they carried out work on the heating system - so they would have to satisfy a court, on the balance of probablilities, that the heating was not working at exchange (i.e.e that your forms were misleading) rather than that it was woring at exchange but that it broke or was damaged by the work they did after exchange.

In additon, as davidmcn says, they have a duty to mitigate their losses, which they could have done by accepting your offer to have a plumber check the sytsem when you were first made asware of the problem. I suspect that if oit went to court you could argue that the fact they refused to let you engage a plumbe to address the problem strongly sugests that they knew the issue was caused by their works, and didn't want this to come to light.

Had they had a plumber in then and there, then presumably repairs could have been done and they would not have suffered any inconvenience (they were not yet living in the property) would not have needed any additional heaers (they were not livingin the property) and you could legitimately have had basic repairs done, not a full replacement of the system.

Do yuou have any record of your offering to repair it?

SnooksNJ

ikcdab wrote: »

It's £2k for the hearing. Approx £500 for additional electricity to heat the house. A sum to buy electric heaters and £1500 for pain and discomfort....

haha money to heat the house, buy electric heaters, and £1500 for pain and discomfort when it's like 90 degrees out.
Where is the OP located because this is the kind of garbage that ties up the US County Court systems.