Vendors lied to solicitors

SG27

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

The court would not necessarily take that approach. Recent case law indicates that for example where a very particular specification of swimming pool was referred to and it was delivered slightly differently, there had been no loss, and notwithstanding the specification was identified as being very important, that was not enough for the court to award specific performance or award the sum required to rebuild to the correct spec.

This whole post begs the question as to why you didnt check the state of the mortar yourselves if it was that important. Most solicitors would advise against giving any warranties relating to repair or condition.

Because they wouldnt allow it. It would mean removing the paint and digging out some render to test.

SG27

Sorry to hear this tamsin. Have you got a quote to repoint yet? I would get quotes so you know how much you need to claim from then.

Knowing your vendors this may end up in court

SG27

teneighty wrote: »

I'm curious how the OP is going to quantify their loss? Is a house with cement render and pointing worth less than a house with lime render and pointing? I seriously doubt it but I'm intrigued to learn the answer.

Yes! And it could cause longterm damage in a house of thst age and construction.

Uxb

YES indeed - using cement on old house will do long term damage.
Lime of various grades up to grade 5 hydraulic lime depending on the location must be used.
You can usually spot the old house or wall repointed incorrectly in cement - the front of many of the bricks will be cracked and may have come off totally (the term is spalted)

Instead of the moisture being able to evaporate/come out via the lime repointing it cannot as the cement pointing which is totally impervious to water prevents it. So the water freezes in the old bricks which are much softer than the modern factory manufactured ones and the front face pings off.

Its a major issue with all old buildings - damage done by some builders and indeed owners with no idea of what they are doing inappropriately using cement rather than lime.
I live in a totally lime built house and that is both the brickwork mortar and all the plasterwork inside done in lime.

Any lime based render should also be "painted" in a moisture permeable coating such as a limewash and certainly not in horrors such as sandtex.

TamsinC

Thanks to all - we've been out drowning our sorrows - so yes, a cement render old house is significantly different to a lime rendered one - it's not purely cosmetic its functional. The lime render makes sure the house breathes as it should and stops damp, and rot etc.

We didn't test the render as we weren't allowed to, it involves removing an area of paint, chipping away at the render and sending it off for analysis.

We knew the paint was sandtex and would need to come off - we could see that and the vendors confirmed it. We couldn't see under the paint to the render. So we asked the question and were up front that if is was cement it too would need to come off and although we would accept that we knew the paint needed to come off and had seen it on the house and so would factor that into OUR costs, we couldn't see the render and pointing and so if it wasn't lime we would readjust our offer to account for it. We were assured through various means that it was lime. And we really hoped it was.

We are now reliant on the solicitors being able to provide written proof. I have emails from the EA but that is all at the moment. I am chasing my solicitors.

No matter what the render/pointing will need removing and replaced if it is cement, and then lime washed. We are stone not brick so hopefully not too much spalling will have occurred.

How much compensation would we like? Enough to pay for the rectification works. We haven't had quotes yet but I'm certain it won't be cheap. We aren't after money for nothing. We very specifically asked the question and refused to exchange on the actual day of exchange, until the question had been answered. Had the answer been different we would have revised our offer. The answer was not 'in our opinion' or any such ilk, it was a positive 'there is no cement render or pointing only lime' type of answer [the precise wording evades me]. Had it been a wishy washy answer we would have then gone back and insisted on further tests if possible, but they were very sure in their answer. We did not ask how they knew, just if they did.

Hope that helps answer everyones queries.

foxy-stoat

How old is this house ? I doubt they had O&M Manuals with COSHH data sheets handy when they tried to answer your questions....they should of said unknown and you could of pulled out of the sale.

Good luck with getting somewhere with your solicitors.

AnotherJoe

foxy-stoat wrote: »

How old is this house ? I doubt they had O&M Manuals with COSHH data sheets handy when they tried to answer your questions....they should of said unknown and you could of pulled out of the sale.

Good luck with getting somewhere with your solicitors.

The interesting thing is, according to the OP, they refused to allow tests and the OP still went ahead.
Legally this could get messy, If you ask a layman if the mortar/render is lime and they say "yes" because thats what someone told them, can you rely on that? Also, if it has paint over it, doesn't that mean its not porous anyway so whether its cement or lime underneath is academic?

TamsinC

foxy-stoat wrote: »

How old is this house ? I doubt they had O&M Manuals with COSHH data sheets handy when they tried to answer your questions....they should of said unknown and you could of pulled out of the sale.

Good luck with getting somewhere with your solicitors.

It's very old - in the region of four hundred years - the vendors made out they were very used to old buildings and their needs. There is a wealth of info out there to be learnt. I agree if they didn't know they should've said, and then we would have either altered our offer [which they may or may not have accepted], or pulled out of the sale. As it was the vendor was adamant via the EA - and then the solicitors - that it was lime. We popped it in the enquiries questions so as to have a record at the solicitors.

I agree as well, we may not get anywhere. And ending up in a messy legal battle isn't what we want.

AnotherJoe wrote: »

The interesting thing is, according to the OP, they refused to allow tests and the OP still went ahead.
Legally this could get messy, If you ask a layman if the mortar/render is lime and they say "yes" because thats what someone told them, can you rely on that? Also, if it has paint over it, doesn't that mean its not porous anyway so whether its cement or lime underneath is academic?

We already knew the paint needed to come off, the vendors knew that too, they admitted they weren't thinking when they put on the paint and should've used lime wash. Hence we believed them when they said it was lime render etc. Pointless putting lime wash over cement.

We understand we shall probably get no-where, and have to suck it up. A simple apology wouldn't go amiss though.

Nothing more to be done until we know if we have written evidence. If we don't have that then no point pursuing it - thanks to G_M for that advice.

Bossypants

Forget about getting an apology. Even if it was a complete mistake and the vendors truly do feel terrible about it, no solicitor worth their salt is going to allow their clients to apologise, which could be interpreted as admitting fault and leave them wide open legally. It's unfortunate, but there it is.

TamsinC

Bossypants wrote: »

Forget about getting an apology. Even if it was a complete mistake and the vendors truly do feel terrible about it, no solicitor worth their salt is going to allow their clients to apologise, which could be interpreted as admitting fault and leave them wide open legally. It's unfortunate, but there it is.

True - sad but true.