I'm now being sued by the purchaser

thesaint

Argghhh wrote: »

i think people are missing the point that the buyer had access to the property in between exchange and completion

I didn't miss this point, as I addressed my thoughts on this hours ago.

thesaint wrote: »

<snip>

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

paddy's_mum

I believe that most of this is academic. County Court judges generally employ common-sense.

On Wednesday, a hailstorm and a half tore through this neighbourhood, wrecking garden plants and crops in the nearby fields.

If that exceptionally fierce weather had dislodged a tile on the roof (of a house I don't live in and which was empty) and the person contracted to buy the property refused my offer to have a professional make the roof sound and watertight again, am I responsible for ensuing water damage - ceilings brought down, joists saturated, laminate flooring lifting, kitchen MDF units blowing? Even more pertinently, should I be paying to fix what the intransigent $%^'s own stupidity caused to happen? I don't think so.

The seller and his plumber accessed the property to ascertain the facts and offered a perfectly reasonable solution to the buyer, who refused it.

That was the buyer's choice, free and clear, and nobody held a gun to his head.

It is my view that this purchaser wanted a raft of money off the purchase price and is going to make sure he gets it, by hook or by crook.

Fortunately, County Court judges are also customers, employers of workmen, shoppers, bill-payers, house maintainers etc who themselves sometimes make honest mistakes. They are generally well able to work out who is pulling wool over whose eyes.

There is also the spirit of the Part 36 legislation to be factored into this current squabble.

Sjmb

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Of course they were still the legal owners: completion had not happened yet.

If you are buying a house then you are usually responsible for insuring the property from exchange of contracts. The standard conditions used in almost all sales state that if anything happens to the property between exchange and completion, it is the buyer's liability. For that reason, some lenders require proof of insurance before they will release the mortgage funds to your solicitor – if the house falls down between exchange and completion you will still have to buy it. However, it can be agreed that the property will be 'at the risk' of the seller until completion and that they have to insure it. Because of the formalities a sale contract must comply with, any variation to the standard terms must be included in the contract.

Miss_Samantha

Sjmb wrote: »

If you are buying a house then you are usually responsible for insuring the property from exchange of contracts. The standard conditions used in almost all sales state that if anything happens to the property between exchange and completion, it is the buyer's liability. For that reason, some lenders require proof of insurance before they will release the mortgage funds to your solicitor – if the house falls down between exchange and completion you will still have to buy it. However, it can be agreed that the property will be 'at the risk' of the seller until completion and that they have to insure it. Because of the formalities a sale contract must comply with, any variation to the standard terms must be included in the contract.

Yes, you were wrong in your previous comment.

Kyresa

It is the buyer's responsibility to make all reasonable enquiries.

It is the buyer's responsibility to check any items such as this BEFORE exchange of contracts. i always write a paragraph in my purchase reports stating i recommend the buyer has these things checked before this point as after that it's tough luck. Essentially you are buying the plot of land, not the building - hence the lender insisting on insurance with an appropriate rebuild value

Buyer did not carry out reasonable checks before exchange. Tough luck on buyer. As someone stated earlier - Ignore correspondence. If it goes to court meet them there. No case to answer.

moneyistooshorttomention

Argghhh wrote: »

i think people are missing the point that the buyer had access to the property in between exchange and completion and also did work installing or replacing a radiator on the heating system. No court is going to find against the seller if the hating system was tampered / worked on

Actually - for all we know the buyer may have deliberately mucked-up the boiler (ie rather than done so by accident) - ie at the time they did this work on the house.

That fact (ie possible deliberate sabotage) would also be likely to cross a judges mind.

ikcdab

Ok, so an update. The purchaser of the property is now suggesting that he has access to a surveyors report that noted the heating as being defective. I have never seen this report. So the scenario now might be as follows:
I am selling an empty house that belonged to my mother-in-law. It is old and in run down condition.
1. February 2015: The property is put on sale. The heating is left on.
2. March 2015: We sign the TA6 form and say that the heating works (which is true)
3. May/June 2015: the heating is turned off for the summer
4. August 2015: an offer is accepted. The purchasers have a survey done which notes the heating is defective. We (the sellers) are NOT made aware of this. The purchasers pull out with no reason given.
5. October 2015: a second offer is accepted from new purchasers.
6. In response to queries, we say that the original TA6 form information is correct. We did not actually test the heating at this stage to make sure this was true, but relied on the fact that it had been working in June and we had no reason to suspect it was faulty.
7. October – November 2015: the new purchaser visits the property on several occasions (at least 6) to look around. Apparently he does not test the heating. The purchaser does NOT have a survey done.
8. November 2015: contracts exchanged and the purchaser is given a key agreement to enable him to have work done before completion. Among other things, this involved a complete rewire and moving radiators. The key agreement states that the purchaser is responsible for all breakdowns or damage after exchange.
9. December 24 2015: purchaser informs us that heating is defective.
10. 4 January, I attend with a plumber who states he can ‘probably’ fix it for £300. I offer to pay this but the purchaser refuses the offer.
11. Next day, the purchaser demands £2000 off the asking price. I refuse.
12. Completion then takes place at the original price.
13. July/August 2016: the purchaser is now intending to sue us for misrepresentation, claiming we knowingly claimed the heating was working when we knew it wasn’t.
Clearly, if the survey does exist and if it says the heating is defective then it puts a different light on matters. So, where do we stand? I am consulting a solicitor, but would be grateful for this forums useful comments. Does the purchaser have a case?

Kynthia

It wasn't your survey and you never saw it. Unless someone can say you did I can't see it changing anything.

fairy_lights

Even if there was a survey, how would they have got hold of it?
And assuming they did, they still rejected your offer to fix the pump.

davidmcn

Did you know the August 2015 surveyor had touched the heating? It's unusual for them to bother doing more than a cursory visual inspection.