We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
I'm now being sued by the purchaser
Options
Comments
-
My only concern is that the OP didn't check the heating was still working when they re-signed the Property Information Form. Apart from that it was the buyers job to investigate the property before exchanging.Don't listen to me, I'm no expert!0
-
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....
The guy is a total chancer. It does not cost £2k for a hearing in the small claims court, and they are only interested in financial loss, so that £1500 for pain and discomfort will be thrown out straight away.
If you have all communication regarding your offer to get someone in to fix it in writing then you should have a perfectly valid defence if ever this finds it way to the SCC.0 -
The seller offered to fix it. The buyer refused.
As stated already, the seller doesn't need to "offer" to fix something they claim is working. They have signed to say it is working already. Once they were on notice that is wasn't working, they should have fixed it.When they signed the final paperwork, they knew they were buying a house with a non-functioning boiler.
The seller knew they were selling a house with a non functioning boiler that they claimed in writing was functioning.Well life is harsh, hug me don't reject me.0 -
Just a word of warning:
Just about everyone here has been telling you that the buyer has no justification and should be ignored.
Let me re-iterate that.... "ignored".
That means do not reply. It does not mean write back refusing to pay, or trying to justify/explain why you now think you should not pay.
DO NOT REPLY.
Replying will have 2 consequences:
1) it will open up a dialogue which will be tiresome, stressful and never-ending
2) it risks you inadvertantly saying something that could later be used in court (eg "I'm so sorry that....." which could be interpeted later by a judge as an admission)0 -
That's a typo, it's meant to say £2k for 'heating', ie a new boilerKeep_pedalling wrote: »The guy is a total chancer. It does not cost £2k for a hearing in the small claims court, and they are only interested in financial loss, so that £1500 for pain and discomfort will be thrown out straight away.Changing the world, one sarcastic comment at a time.0 -
but the purchaser declined this offer and asked for a reduction in the purchase price, which we declined.As stated already, the seller doesn't need to "offer" to fix something they claim is working. They have signed to say it is working already. Once they were on notice that is wasn't working, they should have fixed it.
The seller knew they were selling a house with a non functioning boiler that they claimed in writing was functioning.
And the buyer knew that they were buying a house without a working boiler because they had refused the offer to get it working.
They had the option to walk away if they were unhappy with that fact.0 -
Just a word of warning:
Just about everyone here has been telling you that the buyer has no justification and should be ignored.
Let me re-iterate that.... "ignored".
That means do not reply. It does not mean write back refusing to pay, or trying to justify/explain why you now think you should not pay.
DO NOT REPLY.
Replying will have 2 consequences:
1) it will open up a dialogue which will be tiresome, stressful and never-ending
2) it risks you inadvertantly saying something that could later be used in court (eg "I'm so sorry that....." which could be interpeted later by a judge as an admission)
I'd also be a little concerned that the OP offered to repair it in the first instance - could it be construed as admitting some responsibility?0 -
Well one can never 100% predict what a court might construe, butI'd also be a little concerned that the OP offered to repair it in the first instance - could it be construed as admitting some responsibility?
No. I'd construe it as part of the final sale negotiations. Negotiations start with a buyer offering a price which the seller accepts.
Very commonly, eg following a survey or as a result of searches, or even market changes (think Brexit!), the price or some other aspect of the sale contract is renegotiated/changed.
That's what happened here - there was a renegotiation. Seller made an offer (a repair) and the buyer declined in this case.
The contract was later Exchanged on that basis.0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards