Small Claims Court - Missing Contents From House Purchase

markin

The must be someone who witnessed the date or who dumped the rubbish or removed carpets.

need_an_answer

manlovestreet wrote: »

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.

If you were to opt for a 50/50 type settlement then I think it would not be reasonable in asking the vendor to also pay all your costs,that doesn't really follow logic.

fees for bringing the action are unlikely to be added to the claim if you are seeking a half split

what contact have you had with the vendor since the solicitor replied last year?
The fact that you have failed to pursue it until now seems a little strange...its now over 6 months since this all happened.

Presumably you've replaced the damaged and lost items with something of your choice and have moved on with life...why suddenly go back and reopen it all.

The other thing you need to be mindful of is when you replaced the broken and missing items did you do so like for like...that will have a bearing on how much you can claim.
£2500 on brand new carpets to your spec may not have been what the vendor had in there,likewise the bathroom fittings.

Your claim could end up a lot less than its cost you to replace simply because you have not sourced the same components on a like for like and age basis.

Your initial post suggested £2500,you now have thought 50/50 so £1250 making an allowance for new for old could actually cut that figure in half or more...so you are not looking now at claiming more than £1000.


Add the time it will take to prepare your case fully and pursue it and I'm starting to wonder if you really will think its worth it given that its not clear cut in your favour....and ultimately you could still end up with nothing other than a CCJ registered against the vendor.

Small claims can help people reclaim money,but it can also be a long protracted way of doing things.

lisyloo

What has you conveyancing solicitor said?

Do you have a legal helpline on your insurance? I know you were insured at the time but you should be able to speak to a qualified solicitor if that is part of your policy.

Seems to me you need proper legal advice.

Why has there been a gap?

need_an_answer

lisyloo wrote: »

What has you conveyancing solicitor said?

Do you have a legal helpline on your insurance? I know you were insured at the time but you should be able to speak to a qualified solicitor if that is part of your policy.

Seems to me you need proper legal advice.

Why has there been a gap?

The OP wasn't insured with the company at the time of the discovery(might just be your typo)

but it would be interesting to know what advice they would give him if perhaps when he got a quote for insurance going forward he failed to mention that within the few days that he had owned the property a break in had been discovered.
A disturbance even if it was a no fault should probably have been disclosed in order to get a valid and true quotation for insurance going forward.


OP you did disclose this to the insurance?

Clutterfree

How do the police know the damage/burglary took place before you took ownership on the 19th?

manlovestreet

Cakeguts wrote: »

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?

Thank you for your input.

It was the first thing I did, both front and back door locks, after the police visited on 20/10/18.

manlovestreet

Albala wrote: »

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?

Thank you for your reply.

This was my way of thinking as well. The property fitting form is part of the contract. It wouldn't be reasonably expected to visit the property a few minutes before the exchange, so we relay on the last visit and the contents form.
I last visited the property in September and completed in October. It was all fine in September and in between the items went missing/broken.

letitbe90

Almost certainly this wouldn't be the work of a burglar (they may make it look like it, with the entrance via a window).


Someone either has a grudge against you or the vendor. Out of curiosity during the process, was the relationship between you and the vendor strained (be it via intermediary)?

As others have said, taking off the carpet, kitchen hood and breaking a toilet isn't the action of a burglar. Burglars are known to leave a place in a state in some cases (rare but happens) but this is usually when very quickly opening stuff in search of things, not under carpets, in the toilet and definitely not the hood! Could you imagine a burglar risking themselves carrying out carpet off a property :rotfl:.


Unfortunately, nothing to be done either way - but quite a strange way to be welcomed into a new home.

manlovestreet

silvercar wrote: »

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.

The key here is "legal expectation it will be in the state it was at exchange".

This may not always be the case, and if it isn't the liability should be towards the seller/owner.
If the exchange and completion is on the same day/1 day apart it makes things more difficult, and if the estate agents do not have any suitable appointments on that day, it would further delay matters.

manlovestreet

konark wrote: »

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.

Thank you for your input.

The garden was full of old mattresses, broken furniture. There is a right of way from the street to the rear garden for 6 houses, and there is a metal gate but the lock was broken. I have replaced this. So it could have been any of the neighbors, or anyone walking past and saw the lock was broken and had access to the rear.

As you rightly have said, I believe I have a strong case and will pursue this.