Misrepresentation, should we bother?

Dean000000

Doozergirl wrote: »

So, did the OP ask for that?!
.

yes - twice (by implication anyway)

Doozergirl

Dean000000 wrote: »

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.




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....

And I acknowledged that in the very first post I made, and subsequently.

What house you want to buy is irrelevant to the OP.

Dean000000

Doozergirl wrote: »

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.
.

Doozergirl wrote: »

What house you want to buy is irrelevant to the OP.

what house 'I wanted to buy' was brought up in response to your claim that I was wrong, and that they should have been happy with the newer (but dangerous) electrics.


and the fact is - had the sellers have been honest and said yes - it wouldn't have been unreasonable to OP to ask for the cert of compliance....(which of course they didn't have)


anyway - were not seeing eye to eye here....


I think the seller has deliberately negligent and dishonest - and, therefore, is correct in his disgruntlement.

Doozergirl

AJGuy wrote: »

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.

So, you had a survey and effectively ignored it because the surveyor was crying wolf?

That is a working document and yet advice, even here, is 'oh, it's all because it's an old house'. Yes, it's an old house, that why it's likely that stuff is wrong and needs fixing. I'm the one who fixes all of that stuff for people who have a genuine interest in making their house perfect and I know exactly how fragile houses are. People would be utterly shocked at what holds their houses up.

The electrical wiring is completely unknown without testing.

I'm not saying they were wrong to lie, but the gas and electrics are really, really important when it comes to the safety of your house, because of the the risk they present by being able to set fire to your home. It goes without saying that you should have those tested, because if there is something wrong with those, the outcome is potentially catastrophic.

Why people are glib about it, I have no idea.

AJGuy

I feel like this post is going off on a little tandem.

Legally we are well with within our rights and have a strong case for misrepresentation. This is not the issue. The issue is, should we proceed? Do more vendors need reminding that lieing is not ok? How time consuming is a case of misrepresentation compared to something like suing a car wash for damage? Is it ethically right?

I hope to achieve the previous owners backing down and paying for the consumer unit to be inspected, remedial work to bring it back up to standard and be thought a valuable lesson is telling porky pies. Is that reasonable?

Doozergirl

Dean000000 wrote: »

what house 'I wanted to buy' was brought up in response to your claim that I was wrong, and that they should have been happy with the newer (but dangerous) electrics.


and the fact is - had the sellers have been honest and said yes - it wouldn't have been unreasonable to OP to ask for the cert of compliance....(which of course they didn't have)


anyway - were not seeing eye to eye here....


I think the seller has deliberately negligent and dishonest - and, therefore, is correct in his disgruntlement.

Do you read anything I write before replying?

At NO POINT did I say that the OP should be happy with the newer, dangerous, electrics! :eek: You're being happy with the multiquote option, so go and find the quote where I said that. I even told them what they should do to reclaim the money if they chose to!

My posting here is about trying to help other people, not just the OP, take the proper steps when buying a house. It is folly to ignore every survey ever written and blindly trust that the electrics are sound in any house.

AJGuy

We had some of them professionals come in have a look at the house and every single report came back as all clear... a few of them twisted thier face and asked if this surveyor was just covering her back by asking for everything to be checked regardless of its condition.

We had these checks done on...
Gas
Roof
Roof structure
Dry wood rot
Wall ties
Width of floor joists
Footings (no idea what this was)

Seriously if this was a 100 year old property we would have expected to have further checks but going off advice from our solicitor and financial advisor this was normal for surveyors to just cover themselves in every shape and form. You speak of a survey like it’s a written document that is meticulously drawn up for our house (and I was expecting that) instead the statement “a house of this age may have blah blah blah”, the whole thing just looked like a template with very little observations. She couldn’t even be bother to walk a few doors down to gauge the condition of the roof, instead she put it in her report that she could not see the roof so we would need a professional.

Doozergirl

AJGuy wrote: »

I feel like this post is going off on a little tandem.

Legally we are well with within our rights and have a strong case for misrepresentation. This is not the issue. The issue is, should we proceed? Do more vendors need reminding that lieing is not ok? How time consuming is a case of misrepresentation compared to something like suing a car wash for damage? Is it ethically right?

I hope to achieve the previous owners backing down and paying for the consumer unit to be inspected, remedial work to bring it back up to standard and be thought a valuable lesson is telling porky pies. Is that reasonable?

Yes, it is reasonable. But it is costly.

And that is why, if you can afford it, you should properly document what is wrong with the electrics, quote to fix those.

You can usually get a bit of extra work out of your solicitor in the form of a letter or two but they will want to pass it to litigation if you start seeking recompense. The cost of that is immense and will wipe out much, if not all of your recompense.

The route likely to get you the actual money would be taking the small claims route yourself, in which case you need to ensure that your paperwork is immaculate and be prepared for the cost in time. Only you can decide if it's worth it.

I should think that your solicitor might send the first letter with the electrical report and a quote to fix the work, asking them to repay you and ststing that you will be persuing it. That might be worth paying for even if it isn't free. The ensuing argument is what will sap your funds; if they argue or ignore, just let the small claims judge rule on it.

What you should bear in mind is that you might want to be reasonable in assessing what needed fixing as a result of the lie, rather than arguing that they are liable for everything because they provided a guarantee of quality - because they did not.

AJGuy

Thank you! That answer most of my questions. So basically shake the apple cart and see what happens? We need to double check but our legal fees may be fully covered... taking cost of litigation out would you still avoid it?

Bacon_Sandwich

You should sue these so-called people into oblivion. You should, through litigation, crush and destroy them so that the remainder of their pitiful existence will be a reminder of the inconvenience that they caused you. Then they can slither into the fiery lakes of hell, where they clearly belong.