Guardian article about vendor failing to complete on time

Malmo

Guardian article

Does seem unjust that court action against the vendor could be costly and outweigh the expense caused by their and their legal representative's incompetence. Surely there is a cost effective way for the buyer to claim everything back?

davidmcn

What do you suggest would be more cost-effective? There are costs, delays and risks involved in pursuing any sort of legal action. Though I'm not sure why their expert seems so pessimistic about the prospects of success.

G_M

you should be due compensation in accordance with interest set out in the contract – normally a lowly 4% above base rate.

I was under the impression a claim could also be made of the party at breach for any consquential loses eg removal company, hotel etc.

Am I wrong?

If not, a small claim would seem a straightforward and worthwhile course of action.

HouseBuyer77

It seems odd the expert claims the cost of a small claims action could outweigh the money they could claim.

Their bill of £2'400 seems justifiable and clearly the vendor failed to complete on time leading the costs incurred. Is this not a straight-forward case with a high chance of success?

Guest101

This is all based on a solicitor doing the leg work at £300 an hour ofcourse it would be outweighed and solicitors costs are very rarely awarded in SCs

G_M

Guest101 wrote: »

This is all based on a solicitor doing the leg work at £300 an hour ofcourse it would be outweighed and solicitors costs are very rarely awarded in SCs

If all that is claimed is 28 hours at 4% above base rate (ie peanuts) AND assuming a solicitor is paid, then yes, the costs far outweigh the claim.

but if the claim is for the full £2,400 (as well as the 4%), and the claimants use the straight-forward moneyclaim online process without a solicitor, then it is well worthwhile.