Misrepresentation, should we bother?

Dean000000

csgohan4 wrote: »

OP if you didn't get an electrician to check the house, you only have yourself to blame. Just like if the boiler packed in when you moved in and you didn't do a boiler check Before exchange.


Regarding the other stuff, life is too short to quibble over carpets and clocks.


My vendor hid a bathroom leak and we had to replaster the whole kitchen ceiling and fix the leak. Comes with buying a house I'm afraid

That’s untrue though, he expressly asked a question and was lied to?

I’m not sure if he op could have reasonably done any more

Doozergirl

Dean000000 wrote: »

That’s untrue though, he expressly asked a question and was lied to?

I’m not sure if he op could have reasonably done any more

You're wrong.

OP, What difference should it have made if they told you they had worked carried out? Presumably nobody gave you a certificate to certify what you thought was older electrics - and yet you were happy with that.

I totally understand that you are miffed that they said nothing and then lied, but the outcome is potentially no different than had they had no work done and the previous owner's work was equally shoddy.

When you buy a house your surveyor will have put in their document that you should have the electrics properly checked. Without a certificate of any kind for any age of work, you do not know what you are buying and you are taking a risk that potentially ends with where you are now. Surveys are working documents, not a categorical bill of health for a property. You say that it only brought up issues which might go with a house that age - like older electrical wiring. . There will be mention.

Next time, have a proper check of the electrics and the boiler system when you buy a house. This is what all of us should be doing!

Litigation costs something in the region upwards of £200 an hour. If you are going to sue them, then I'd get your proper report, fix the work and then go through the small claims route.

You are not squeaky clean though. Their statement about having no work done did not make a potential mess of electrics any less likely. Only their lie makes them potentially liable and not you - so you may have a get out of jail free card. Although litigation is never free emotionally or in the form of your own time.

Dean000000

Because the work that was done was potentially lethal.

I would rather buy a house with 30yr old electrics then one that had been done recently but poorly/dangerously.

Especially after being wilfully lied to.

Ought op have got in;

A gas man to check the boiler
A structural engineer to check the foundations
Or a A land surveyor to check the boundary lines...


And the difference would have been a niceic registered cert, with some level of recourse against....potentially at least
Anyway, sorry op. I have sympathy for you.

Doozergirl

Dean000000 wrote: »

Because the work that was done was potentially lethal.

I would rather buy a house with 30yr old electrics then one that had been done recently but poorly/dangerously.

Especially after being wilfully lied to.

Ought op have got in;

A gas man to check the boiler
A structural engineer to check the foundations
Or a A land surveyor to check the boundary lines...

Anyway, sorry op. I have sympathy for you.

a) Yes, a gas man to check the boiler because the survey WILL recommend that.
b) Yes, if the survey recommended it.
c) Yes, if the survey highlighted it or the OP was checking them as they should be and found something peculiar.

You're supposed to check the electrics! End of.

Saying you'd prefer 30 year old electrics to new without a certificate is a ridiculous statement because there's a high likelihood that those would have been dabbled with over the years by idiots and there is literally no way of knowing without properly testing it.

The risk is exactly the same, if not worse with older electrics.

Get the electrics tested, people.

Dean000000

https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/find-an-electrician/building-regulations/england/


Who is responsible for making sure that electrical work in your home meets the requirements of Part P?

By law, the homeowner or landlord must be able to prove that all electrical installation work meets Part P, or they will be committing a criminal offence.

Dean000000

Doozergirl wrote: »

Saying you'd prefer 30 year old electrics to new without a certificate is a ridiculous statement because there's a high likelihood that those would have been dabbled with over the years by idiots and there is literally no way of knowing without properly testing it.

The risk is exactly the same, if not worse with older electrics.

Get the electrics tested, people.

No - that's not what I said - I said I would rather buy a house with old electrics than one that had been done recently, but poorly.


im not saying the risk is any different either - but at least its known at the time of buying.

Doozergirl

Dean000000 wrote: »

No - that's not what I said - I said I would rather buy a house with old electrics than one that had been done recently, but poorly.


im not saying the risk is any different either - but at least its known at the time of buying.

I'm not sure what you're protesting.

How do you know it's "old, good, electrics" and not "old, bad electrics" is my entire point.

Nothing is known at the time of buying if you take something at face value. The risk is identical. No one ever knows what they are buying unless they test it.

The entire point is to buy something safe.

Doozergirl

Dean000000 wrote: »

https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/find-an-electrician/building-regulations/england/


Who is responsible for making sure that electrical work in your home meets the requirements of Part P?

By law, the homeowner or landlord must be able to prove that all electrical installation work meets Part P, or they will be committing a criminal offence.

So, did the OP ask for that?!

This quote is misleading anyway. The homeowner needs to prove it to Building Control, NOT to a buyer. A homeowner does nit need to orove compliance with Part P because they can sell someone a house with the original wiring (pre regs), with live wires hanging out or, indeed, the house after it's burned down as a result of cruddy electrics - if they want to.

Yes, the vendor was wrong to lie. The OP did nothing though; a vendor saying that they haven't had any work done themselves is zero guarantee of anything.

AJGuy

The survey asked us to have the following checks...
A professional to check the electrics
A professional to check the gas
A professional to check the water main feeding the house
A professional to check dry wood rot in the loft
A professional to check the replacement damp proofing
A professional to check the condition of the roof
A structural engineer to check the width of some bits of wood holding the roof
A professional to check the width of the joists
A professional to check the boundaries
A professional to check the drains
A professional to check the garden for Japanese knot weed
A professional to check the ceilings for asbestos
A professional to check behind the rooms with wall paper
A professional to inspect the gutters as she could not see if they worked as it was dry day
A professional to check if the road outside was adopted (it’s a major road)
A professional to check local mines in the area
A professional to inspect the wall ties
A professional to inspect the cavity wall insulation

Ever heard of the story of the boy that cries wolf? This is a classic example. We would have needed a bus load of “professionals” which the vendor would of probably felt harassed in the end.

We were running on the basis that the house had no electric work since 2005 and was still standing, we were planning on replacing the wiring in a few years time as part of an upgrade. We are now faced with a consumer unit that is potentially fitted illegally as there is little evidence that it has been done by a competent person.

Dean000000

Doozergirl wrote: »

Saying you'd prefer 30 year old electrics to new without a certificate is a ridiculous statement because there's a high likelihood that those would have been dabbled with over the years by idiots and there is literally no way of knowing without properly testing it.
.

im protesting this - as its a statement I never made... I said id prefer old electrics than one that had been done recently, but dangerously.

Doozergirl wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're protesting.

How do you know it's "old, good, electrics" and not "old, bad electrics" is my entire point.

you are right - you don't know this...and the risk is the same either way


but the original post & topic was about misrepresentation and whether to persue it or not.... not whether the risks were equal?


but what you don't expect is to be outright lied to...


OP asked on two occasions whether spark works had been done recently, and was told no - when its a proven and demonstrable lie....