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

lisyloo

I brought up the example as I had a friend with violent and noisy abuse next door (the sort you would not be able to ignore and go to sleep).
Her property value was affected because of it and she knew she couldn't lie.


If it happens AT the property then isn't it relevant TO the property?

AdrianC

lisyloo wrote: »

I brought up the example as I had a friend with violent and noisy abuse next door (the sort you would not be able to ignore and go to sleep).
Her property value was affected because of it and she knew she couldn't lie.

But what if that neighbour had already moved?
Or if it was her partner, not neighbour?

If it happens AT the property then isn't it relevant TO the property?

Not always, no.

Comms69

lisyloo wrote: »

I brought up the example as I had a friend with violent and noisy abuse next door (the sort you would not be able to ignore and go to sleep).
Her property value was affected because of it and she knew she couldn't lie.


If it happens AT the property then isn't it relevant TO the property?

Not necessarily.


Like I said if it was an ex, the issue would follow the vendor.


Similarly if the vendor themselves was the issue, it's unlikely to affect the property price.

Kleb

Interesting responses.

So for a lawsuit to be successful there must be strong documentary evidence (if not actual proof) that the vendor knew about the fault and then lied about it, or lied by omission.

Ignorance is not normally a defence but in this case it would be?

E.g., truthfully saying "I'm not an electrician/gas installer/whatever and I didn't know it was unsafe" would leave the vendor in the clear?

Comms69

Kleb wrote: »

Interesting responses.

So for a lawsuit to be successful there must be strong documentary evidence (if not actual proof) that the vendor knew about the fault and then lied about it, or lied by omission. No, there is no such thing as lying by omission. It's a nonsense.

Ignorance is not normally a defence but in this case it would be? - ignorance is very much a defence, in almost every criminal charge. I think you're confusing ignorance of the law; compared to ignorance of a situation.

E.g., truthfully saying "I'm not an electrician/gas installer/whatever and I didn't know it was unsafe" would leave the vendor in the clear?

Yes, absolutely.


In fact that is too much anyway. the buyer should carry out a survey, that would raise any concerns.

AdrianC

Kleb wrote: »

So for a lawsuit to be successful there must be strong documentary evidence (if not actual proof) that the vendor knew about the fault and then lied about it, or lied by omission.

Yes.

Ignorance is not normally a defence but in this case it would be?

Correct.

E.g., truthfully saying "I'm not an electrician/gas installer/whatever and I didn't know it was unsafe" would leave the vendor in the clear?

Bingo.

lisyloo

Ignorance is not normally a defence but in this case it would be?

With houses it's up to the buyer to check out the house before they buy
i.e. get the relevant surveys


The seller should not be negligent and the seller should not lie.

E.g., truthfully saying "I'm not an electrician/gas installer/whatever and I didn't know it was unsafe" would leave the vendor in the clear?

If it was truthful and they haven't been negligent then they are in the clear.

lincroft1710

The house I am living in had an outside fluorescent light. We were having building work done and one day found the light didn't work. The builder had unknowingly cut through the cable going from switch to light. Whoever had wired it had taken the wiring diagonally, instead of horizontally and vertically.

Thus non-compliant wiring, but only the person who actually did the wiring would have known this, not necessarily subsequent owners.

Murphybear

TadleyBaggie wrote: »

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

If I were buying a 2nd hand toaster I would buy from a charity shop rather than Gumtree. All their electrical goods have to be tested.