Property sale issues

fezster

davidmcn wrote: »

Er, no, that's not how insurance works!

It depends on whether it's continuation of cover or not. Certainly, I've moved house, and my legal cover at renewal (with a different insurer) covered any event which occurred before the cover was taken out, as long as legal action had not been initiated yet.

Rambosmum

From the very little you've said, it doesn't sound like he has a case.


As others have said, block his email, ignore any contact and wait for a LBA.


If he chose not to get certain tests/ survey's/ quote prior to purchase that is his issue. If you didn't lie to any question, didn't give anything provably untrue in writing then he has little recourse.

stokesley

Lulu58 wrote: »

Thanks, fezster. Unfortunately, we can't add to the legal cover on our home insurance policy. It is what is it and there's no cover for this sort of eventuality.

When I had problems with my house purchaser my legal insurance cover on the house insurance didn't cover me for defending litigation anyway. Amazing how you find out what isn't covered when you need it:D.

G_M

fezster wrote: »

It depends on whether it's continuation of cover or not. Certainly, I've moved house, and my legal cover at renewal (with a different insurer) covered any event which occurred before the cover was taken out, as long as legal action had not been initiated yet.

This is highly unusual.

Every legal cover policy I've read (or tried to use!) has excluded any event which occured before the cover started.

The same as car breakdown cover - you can't wait till your car breaks down and then join the AA and expect them to fix it free. Otherwise no one wuld ever join unless they had broken down!

Good for you Lulu deciding to ignore him. One more suggestion - should he happen to have, and use, your phone number, do not get into conversation with him if he rings.

A polite "Sorry I'm really tied up at the moment." and then hang up. Don't even wait for him to respond or you risk getting dragged into a dialogue.

As with the emails - the advice is to ignore him.

You said earlier he claimed you'd made things difficut for him so now he was doing he same to you - well, he only succeeds so long as you respond.

Lulu58

stokesley wrote: »

When I had problems with my house purchaser my legal insurance cover on the house insurance didn't cover me for defending litigation anyway. Amazing how you find out what isn't covered when you need it:D.

My thoughts exactly, stokesley! Begs the question of whether the addon to the policy is worth having.

We've also got a policy with Which?, and they've been useful in the past, but doesn't cover property issues.

Lulu58

G_M wrote: »

Good for you Lulu deciding to ignore him. One more suggestion - should he happen to have, and use, your phone number, do not get into conversation with him if he rings.

A polite "Sorry I'm really tied up at the moment." and then hang up. Don't even wait for him to respond or you risk getting dragged into a dialogue.

As with the emails - the advice is to ignore him.

You said earlier he claimed you'd made things difficut for him so now he was doing he same to you - well, he only succeeds so long as you respond.

Thanks, G_M. I don't think he has my phone number, although I did nearly call him a while back in a hope of resolving things!! Than heavens I didn't on the basis of how this situation has deteriorated.

fezster

G_M wrote: »

This is highly unusual.

Every legal cover policy I've read (or tried to use!) has excluded any event which occured before the cover started.

The same as car breakdown cover - you can't wait till your car breaks down and then join the AA and expect them to fix it free. Otherwise no one wuld ever join unless they had broken down!

The point you are making is sound, but the analogy is incorrect. Nothing has actually happened until the other party instigates legal proceedings.

Following your own analogy, your car may be on the brink of a breakdown and your mechanic has told you it's not going to last long, but you are entitled to breakdown assistance as long as it hasn't actually broken down.

I'm only repeating what I was told by my particular insurer, but it does make sense. You cant declare something which hasn't actually happened yet.

Guest101

fezster wrote: »

The point you are making is sound, but the analogy is incorrect. Nothing has actually happened until the other party instigates legal proceedings.

Following your own analogy, your car may be on the brink of a breakdown and your mechanic has told you it's not going to last long, but you are entitled to breakdown assistance as long as it hasn't actually broken down.

I'm only repeating what I was told by my particular insurer, but it does make sense. You cant declare something which hasn't actually happened yet.

A dispute has already arisen, it just hasn't gone through all the steps legally.


No different to punching someone in the face, but not being convicted yet.

G_M

fezster wrote: »

The point you are making is sound, but the analogy is incorrect. Nothing has actually happened until the other party instigates legal proceedings.

No.

The legal proceedings (if any) are based on an event in the past. It was (apparantly) at Completion of the sale that the event occured leading to the dispute (and legal proceedings).

Whilst we don't really know the details in this case, it seems clear that the dispute arises from something related to the Completion of the property sale.

I'll eat my paper hat if an insurer would take this on unless the policy was already in place at the time of Completion.

However I agree the analogy isn't perfect - just can't be bothered to think of a better one!

fezster

G_M wrote: »

The legal proceedings (if any) are based on an event in the past. It was (apparantly) at Completion of the sale that the event occured leading to the dispute (and legal proceedings).

Take tax investigation insurance as a comparative example. The insurance needs to be active at the point an investigation is initiated. Some investigations can be for events which occurred many years in the past (up to seven, I believe, for limited company accounts). It's not necessary to have had insurance in place when the event took place. In fact - you could have had insurance in place at the time, but unless you have insurance when an investigation is initiated, it will not cover you.

I'll eat my paper hat if an insurer would take this on unless the policy was already in place at the time of Completion.

Well one insurer has - I'm basing this on my own real world example. I'm not just making it up or conjecturing, as you may think. So let's just agree to disagree.