Asbestos garage roof

AnotherJoe

G_M wrote: »

Whilst anotherjoe's response is a valid and sensible defence, I agree with keith above - at this stage you do not enter into dialogue, or justifications.

Less is more. I would not even respond.

That would normally be my position also, but in this case the OP already put in writing that it did not contain asbestos*, I think unless they address that point upfront the purchasers may believe it's worth suing since they have a clear misrepresentation in writing. This hopefully will forestall that, even if in the right, you dont really want to have to defend a court case.

It is a judgement call which approach to take I agree but the purchaser may take silence as no defence and worth proceeding . IT doesn't cost much to make a MCOL claim. it's also the oniy obvious defence the OP can have so I don't think it's giving anything away.

* a few years ago I sold a car in px at a dealer. One form had a section for me to sign warranting that the car was in good mechanical condition. Instead of signing I wrote to the effect that as I was not a mechanic I was not in a position to make that judgement.

AnotherJoe

Jo_Fish wrote: »

At the beginning of all this after the buyers had their survey done we did our own, we too were shocked to find asbestos in the sheets.

Eh ? Your OP gave the impression this has come out of the blue but now it appears it's towards the end of an interaction with the purchaser you've been having that's been ongoing for a while? ! You can't just conduct a test on someone else's garage roof can you?

Have you omitted a longer backstory ?

Jo_Fish

In October we had a letter from our solicitor to say they had a survey done to show asbestos in the roof. As we didn't believe it we decided to have our own done to check it out and yes it was correct. Since then we sent a letter to them explaining that alothough we were shocked, and explained the timeline for the roof being replaced, we didn't see to was our responsibility as this should of been checked out before the sale. As my dad is a local builder who as been on numerous course for asbestos we were told it was best to keep the roof as it was as taking it down would cause issues with dust and spores etc. We left it at that......we hadn't heart from them until now, wanting replacements and new roof......

Matt_L

If the roof isn't damaged then it is safe to leave and there is no reason for it to be touched. If the new owner wants rid because it is asbestos then he can remove it himself for nothing but pay a small fee for it to be disposed off....

Simple...

davidmcn

Jo_Fish wrote: »

Out of interest what happens if it does go to court and we have to pay out? We have no money....!? Would they make us take out a loan or such like to pay them off!

Court might order you to pay by instalments. But as I alluded to above, the fact you don't have money ought to deter them from spending their own money pursuing you further.

AnotherJoe

Matt_L wrote: »

If the roof isn't damaged then it is safe to leave and there is no reason for it to be touched. If the new owner wants rid because it is asbestos then he can remove it himself for nothing but pay a small fee for it to be disposed off....

Simple...

I agree but I dont think that's the key issue though.

The issue is misrepresentation by the OP. Now they can claim that there is no need to replace it, but the only way they could make that claim is have a specialist say that on their behalf.

As a layperson relying on their unfamiliarity with the technical constituents of concrete tiles as a "get out", they cant then also claim to know that it is safe / not safe in situ.

In any case, the OP has unfortunately omitted the history of this, the OP gave the impression a letter arrived out of the blue a year after the sale. I suspect peoples advice /suggestions would change once they know this (such as those saying "say nothing" when its clear theres been some extensive correspondence already going on)

In light of that i'd change my suggested wording, after getting advice from a specialist to confirm, to the following;

Dear Mr & Mrs Trying it On.

As a layperson, it was my genuine understanding that the roof did not contain asbestos since it had been illegal to sell it for years previously, so the concrete sheets i bought should not have contained it. Thus my answer that it did not contain asbestos was made in good faith, but not as an expert on the matter. Your solicitor should have advised you of this.

As I am not an expert on these matters you should have taken that into account if it was important to you. It was your option at the time to pay for an appropriate specialist, which you did not.

Should you wish to take this court I will ask why if it was so important you did not employ a specialist or have the roof tested at low cost, but instead relied on a laypersons word made in good faith.

In addition, i have now taken specialist advice, an expert in asbestos informs me that as long as the roof is not disturbed or worked on its perfectly safe and there is no need to replace it and therefore no need to incur expenditure.

I consider this the end of the matter.

Jo_Fish

ThAnk you Anotherjoe.....sorry if I didn't give the full story, in my original email, I guess I just wanted a quick answer and have an overall scenario.

keith969

A lot depends on exactly what you or your solicitor told them at the time of purchase. If you stated that you did not believe it contained asbestos, but suggested they get it checked, then you may be OK. If you stated it did not contain asbestos, then you're in a weak position and should think about negotiating a settlement.

martindow

Won't a court look at the loss the buyer has suffered?

I would argue that there is a roof on the garage that, like thousands around the country, is fine if left undisturbed. Despite the OP giving in good faith information on the material used that turns out to be incorrect he buyer has no loss as a result.

Thrugelmir

Surprised that you were sold a product that was banned some 3 years prior. Are your dates right?