Small Claims Court - Missing Contents From House Purchase

manlovestreet

SpiderLegs wrote: »

To repeat with a bit more clarity.
At the point you exchanged contracts you were relying on information provided in May and your own visit from September.

Why didn’t you revisit a day or two before exchange to mitigate this gap in your knowledge?

I didn't realise that something like this would/could happen.

A lesson learnt, although harshly. In future, view the property just before exchange.

manlovestreet

NaughtiusMaximus wrote: »

I find it hard to believe a burglar would strip all the carpets out of a house, time consuming to lift, bulky, awkward to both move & store and with minimal re-sale value. My money's on the vendor, unfortunately impossible to prove one way or the other.

I could only assume the carpets could be used in smaller rooms elsewhere or joined together.

The police found some cigarette butts and took a foot print from the house, which obviously wasn't there the last time I visited in Sept 2018.

I have to say, the police came around on the same day, as did the forensics to take prints etc. Well done to them.

manlovestreet

lisyloo wrote: »

https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/enforce-a-judgment

Thank you for the link.

Could all the fees incurred be passed onto the previous owner, if it gets that far?

Would be useful to know in deciding to take this to court.

silvercar

NaughtiusMaximus wrote: »

I find it hard to believe a burglar would strip all the carpets out of a house, time consuming to lift, bulky, awkward to both move & store and with minimal re-sale value. My money's on the vendor, unfortunately impossible to prove one way or the other.

I agree with your first sentence. Not sure that points to it being the vendor, could be anyone who knew the property was empty and sold. Could be anyone connected to the vendor or the estate agent or a neighbour.

manlovestreet

need_an_answer wrote: »

I accept that,however as you acknowledge the case is weak.

The OP could send a letter to the vendor,but the reality of it is that the term "clutching at straws " might be applicable.

lesson learnt...harshly but none the less.


OP...out of interest if you were to send a letter to the vendor,are you expecting them to cover the full cost,split it 50/50 or a token gesture?

You yourself must take some responsibility for not acting diligently so IF there were to be any interaction with the vendor,I wouldn't expect them to be liable for the full cost of replacements and again if that is what you were thinking of asking for I (if I were the vendor) would possibly ignore your request.

If your letter doesn't work...just how much are you prepared to spend chasing recompense?

As it has been made clear that a proportion of the blame lies with me, I think a 50/50 split would be fair.

But as you state they could ignore the letters as I may be "clutching at straws". In regards to how much I would spend chasing the previous owner, it depends if I could get the fees added onto the amount owed.

manlovestreet

silvercar wrote: »

I agree with your first sentence. Not sure that points to it being the vendor, could be anyone who knew the property was empty and sold. Could be anyone connected to the vendor or the estate agent or a neighbour.

As it was empty for almost 1 year, it could be anyone.

Cakeguts

How did someone get fitted carpets out of an open window? It doesn't make sense. It sounds to me as if someone had a key. Now you could easily get fitted carpets out of a door.



Have you changed the locks?

Albala

Surely the onus is on the seller to hand over the house in the condition the buyer last viewed it, and in accordance with the fixtures and fittings list? that list is part of the contract, isn't it?
I can't see the buyer is in any way to blame here if the damage predated the point of exchange, as it seems it it thought to have done by the police. A buyer can't reasonably be expected to insure a house before exchange, that's ridiculous. If the seller didn't insure it, that's her bad judgement, surely she ought still to be liable for selling what the contract said she was selling? Otherwise, what's to stop any seller trashing a place and talking away promised items and saying 'you should have inspected 5 minutes before exchange'?

The buyer could have viewed it a few days before exchange (but only if that's allowed by the seller, and it's not at all usual) and this could still have happened before exchange. Surely it is the responsibility of the seller to keep the house secure and sort out any damage or theft pre-exchange? If a seller's kid painted all over the walls the day before exchange, or their dog trashed an expensive sofa that had been paid for in the sale, the seller would have to put it right, wouldn't they?

silvercar

Surely the onus is on the seller to hand over the house in the condition the buyer last viewed it,.....

No. The buyer is meant to inspect before exchange and then completes with the legal expectation it will be in the state it was at exchange.

konark

You could go and view it the very day before exchange and the phantom carpet burglar could strike in the night, so it's impossible to keep guard until you get the key.



There is a strong probability that the house was burgled before exchange because it was empty for months before and only 1-2 days after. Civil law is based on probabilities, so you've got a good case. The court would also consider the probability that a burglar would or could steal a carpet from an open window and also the police's assessment that it was done well before they were called..



And don't forget all the rubbish in the garden, or did our mysterious carpet thief dump that as well.