Is property buying/selling always completely caveat emptor? Or can you sue/be sued?

Kleb

Hypothetical question.

Say I'm seriously injured by, e.g. a major electrical fault in the house I've just bought, or, conversely, someone is badly injured in a house they've just bought from me due to a significant defect.

Are there any circumstances in which legal action could be taken? For example, it's strongly suspected the vendor must have known about the fault? Or is it always 'hard luck, mate'?

Cakeguts

Kleb wrote: »

Hypothetical question.

Say I'm seriously injured by, e.g. a major electrical fault in the house I've just bought, or, conversely, someone is badly injured in a house they've just bought from me due to a significant defect.

Are there any circumstances in which legal action could be taken? For example, it's strongly suspected the vendor must have known about the fault? Or is it always 'hard luck, mate'?

Only if they asked you and you lied and said it was fine when you knew it wasn't. You have to have proof that they knew about it and if you didn't ask you have no proof.

AdrianC

Somebody can always sue for whatever they like, regardless of reality or facts. Doesn't mean they'll win...


If the vendor lied on the property information forms, then that could be actionable.
But something like faulty electrics? No. You should have got a survey. The surveyor would almost certainly have said "You should get a specialist electrical check". Did you? No, you decided you didn't need to. Caveat emptor.

However, if you DID get a specialist electrical check, and they signed it off as good, then you may have a case against whoever did that check.

davidmcn

I suspect there'd be criminal remedies (if not civil ones) if someone knowingly left behind a deathtrap.

macman

As I've pointed out before, you generally have more consumer protection buying a £10 toaster than buying a £500K house.

Comms69

Kleb wrote: »

Hypothetical question.

Say I'm seriously injured by, e.g. a major electrical fault in the house I've just bought, or, conversely, someone is badly injured in a house they've just bought from me due to a significant defect.

Are there any circumstances in which legal action could be taken? For example, it's strongly suspected the vendor must have known about the fault? Or is it always 'hard luck, mate'?

It's called due diligence. Unless you can show negligence or malice you cannot take action.


also
Caveat Emptor - Buyer beware
Caveat Venditor - Seller beware

AdrianC

macman wrote: »

As I've pointed out before, you generally have more consumer protection buying a £10 toaster than buying a £500K house.

How many people buy second-hand £10 toasters from private individuals?

TadleyBaggie

AdrianC wrote: »

How many people buy second-hand £10 toasters from private individuals?

Plenty it seems.
https://www.gumtree.com/toasters

AdrianC

...and how much "consumer protection" do they get, relative to those buying new toasters from businesses?

lisyloo

Kleb wrote: »

Are there any circumstances in which legal action could be taken? For example, it's strongly suspected the vendor must have known about the fault?

You would need to have proof rather than suspect.


Let me give you an example.
Let's suppose the vendor claimed here were no issue with the property, but there was proof in police records that they'd called the police 50 times reporting violence, then the vendor would be liable to put you back in the position you would have been had you not bought the house (note that being liable doesn't mean someone can or will pay).



So theorectically yes, but often it's difficult to supply proof that any fault would have been known about if it's say a roof or electrics.



If it's something electrical then you'd need proof that any problem was during their tenure and they knew about it.
Also they would have to have the ability and willingness to pay. You still can't get blood from a stone and you can't get money from people who you either can't trace or don't have the ability to pay.

Comms69

lisyloo wrote: »

You would need to have proof rather than suspect.


Let me give you an example.
Let's suppose the vendor claimed here were no issue with the property, but there was proof in police records that they'd called the police 50 times reporting violence, then the vendor would be liable to put you back in the position you would have been had you not bought the house (note that being liable doesn't mean someone can or will pay).



So theorectically yes, but often it's difficult to supply proof that any fault would have been known about if it's say a roof or electrics.



If it's something electrical then you'd need proof that any problem was during their tenure and they knew about it.
Also they would have to have the ability and willingness to pay. You still can't get blood from a stone and you can't get money from people who you either can't trace or don't have the ability to pay.

That's also very simplistic; the issue must be relevant to the property. So the calls to the police may not be relevant if the issue was an ex for example