Small Claims Court - Missing Contents From House Purchase

need_an_answer

OP...lets turn this round,


if you were the vendor would your response be "jog on".....


And if not,Why would you pay the claim?
Honestly….

letitbe90

need_an_answer wrote: »

OP...lets turn this round,


if you were the vendor would your response be "jog on".....


And if not,Why would you pay the claim?
Honestly….

That might be the case, but if he thinks he has a legal leg to stand on now (which is what he is trying to establish), he isn't not going to proceed with it just because he wouldn't want to pay if the shoe was on the other foot.

manlovestreet

need_an_answer wrote: »

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.

I replaced the carpets, kitchen cooker hood and the toilet (wc) with like for like.I have kept all the receipts and the total is in the region of £2.5-£3k.

I have not been able to pursue this for the last 6 months due to ill health and have been off work. I am now in a position, health wise, to pursue this.

I will first opt for 100% of the costs and fees included in my claim. I would be willing to go down to 50/50 split if the previous owner would like to settle before court, as some members have suggested it a case of probabilities so the court may rule either way. It could be I get nothing from court, 100% from court (may have to enforce this), or settle before court.

need_an_answer

Were the items removed/stolen from the property brand new?

How did you know what they had cost the vendor,did they supply you with receipts for the items when they purchased them?

I'm just trying to make you see that your claim may not be as substantial as you would like to think when depreciation is taken into account.

As is said lots of times here you are unable to claim betterment and in replacing them you cant automatically claim new for old.

I read from your opening post that if you first viewed the property in dec 17 the items would have been at least a year old by the time you took possession of the property.

manlovestreet

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?

Thank you for your input.

My conveyancing solicitor has said:
"Unfortunately, I am unable to assist any further. I can however, pass on your details to our Dispute Resolution Department who may be able to take matters further for you but there would be additional charges in respect of the same"

I had the keys to the property on 19/10/18 at 17:15, and my insurance started on 22/10/18. I have legal cover but as the incident was before my insurance started, it wasn't covered.

manlovestreet

need_an_answer wrote: »

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?

Thank you.

I did disclose this to the insurance company and also informed them that it has been reported to the police, estate agents and my solicitor. I also informed them the front and rear door locks have been changed and all windows have been secured closed with a key lock on the handle.
They informed me that as I wasn't insured at the time, there isn't a claim I could pursue through them

manlovestreet

Clutterfree wrote: »

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

Thank you for your input.

The police discovered some cigarette butts in the property and a footprint, and from their analysis when the forensics team (2 people) came they stated that it was more than a few days old.

From that point onwards, even though I reported the crime and I am the new owner, they said as incident took place before I took owenrship they will proceed with the estate agents/previous owner. As far as I am aware the police have closed the case as they cannot find who did the crime.

manlovestreet

letitbe90 wrote: »

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.

Thank you for your input.

The house was purchased within a close proximity to where I was living before. The sale took 10 months to complete and from what I gathered from the estate agents it was approximately on sale for 4 months before my offer was accepted. There was other offers but none accepted by the vendor.

I personally believe it may have been a homeless person resided there for some time.

The relationship between myself and the vendor was fine. Obviously I did not know the vendor before and all contact with them was through the estate agents and the solicitors. Although it took nearly 10 months for the conveyancing to complete, we got there in the end.

need_an_answer

letitbe90 wrote: »

That might be the case, but if he thinks he has a legal leg to stand on now (which is wha the is trying to establish), he isn't not going to proceed with it just because he wouldn't want to pay if the shoe was on the other foot.

I absolutely agree with you,but I wonder if at the moment the OP has a very blinkered view of this and is continuing to assume that he is right.
Perhaps the reason I asked for him to think about it from the other angle is to try and establish the whole picture with more clarity.

He clearly chose not to visit within a reasonable time prior to exchange,by his own admission up to a month before is not going to be viewed as reasonable. He made some choices which have badly let him down and going forward into any form of small claim or litigation will mean potentially that these areas where he didn't visit or get insurance will be closely scrutinised.


Its not impossible that a loss adjustor will drastically scale back the amount of the claim simply because the items that were stolen were at least,if not more than a year old.


I'm not convinced that the OP has done much research into the process of the small claims and certainly hasn't properly investigated his chances on obtaining a financial settlement even if he were to win the case.


OP before you go much further it might be worth you properly taking your solicitor up on the offer of being passed to the litigation dept to see what your chances are of success...it will probably cost you a monetary figure and it might be worth it to help you make your concrete next steps decision.

£100 spent now for example might be worth every penny either to convince you that its a good idea or a bad idea.


If I were the vendor the first thing I would be doing is spending a little bit of money on a loss adjustor to correctly define the age and appropriate value of the stolen property which potentially is a lot less than the amount the OP has spent in replacements.

need_an_answer

manlovestreet wrote: »

I personally believe it may have been a homeless person resided there for some time.

Homeless as in squatting?
or homeless as in with a rental agreement?

Possibly even more reason you should have been more aware to have checked the property sooner than a month before exchange and certainly not relied upon a property information form.

You were very lucky to have got vacant possession IMO and its very probable that you would have changed the carpets anyway after you moved in...

Potentially you've not had the bother or expense of disposing of them.