Small Claims Court - Missing Contents From House Purchase

manlovestreet

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….

I would make sure I have home insurance including contents up until the completion date. Then if there is any issues put in a claim.
Then honestly if the excess is small, pay it as in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't make a difference. If the excess it a large amount, maybe ask the buyer for a contribution, 50/50.

davidmcn

manlovestreet wrote: »

They informed me that as I wasn't insured at the time, there isn't a claim I could pursue through them

Sorry, are you saying you had to be told that? You thought you might be able to claim for a loss you suffered before you took out insurance?

manlovestreet

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.

Thank you.

That is what I am trying to establish with all of your input, whether my case has a legal leg to stand on.

need_an_answer

manlovestreet wrote: »

I would make sure I have home insurance including contents up until the completion date. Then if there is any issues put in a claim.
Then honestly if the excess is small, pay it as in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't make a difference. If the excess it a large amount, maybe ask the buyer for a contribution, 50/50.

Fantastic..you've given the model answer of perhaps what the vendor should do.Although after exchange it might be more the buyers responsibility to have insurance,especially if there are no personal effects still in the property.

Now consider what you would say to the buyer if you knew that they didn't bother to inspect the property prior to exchange and failed to enquire and take out insurance until a burglary was discovered,considering thay now want to charge you for new carpets to replace one where the occupants of the property have been described as "homeless".


I'm not getting the feeling that this property was pristine even before the burglary

manlovestreet

need_an_answer wrote: »

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.

The whole house was fully refurbished with brand new items fitted/installed. Hence the appeal to me to buy the property. It has a new bathroom, new kitchen (kitchen units/sink/cooker hood), new floor and wall tiles in the kitchen and bathroom, new carpets throughout, freshly painted.

As I saw the items when I viewed the house, when I went to purchase the replacements I tried to make sure they were of similar specification/same standard. The items would have been 10 months old but they were brand new and never been used, regardless of the duration as this is the time it took for the conveyancing to complete.

manlovestreet

need_an_answer wrote: »

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.

I know I am right in some place and some choices I have made are wrong and my fault (two points, I should have viewed the 1 day in between exchange and completion, and taken insurance from the day of exchange or least completion).

Rather than spending £100 (i think it would be a lot more) on the litigation department, I could spend that same money (£105) on the small claims court.

But because of my mistakes and the 'depreciation' I am willing for 50/50 split on the costs.

manlovestreet

need_an_answer wrote: »

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.

Homeless as in squatting.

The carpets were all brand new.

need_an_answer

manlovestreet wrote: »

The whole house was fully refurbished with brand new items fitted/installed. Hence the appeal to me to buy the property. It has a new bathroom, new kitchen (kitchen units/sink/cooker hood), new floor and wall tiles in the kitchen and bathroom, new carpets throughout, freshly painted.

As I saw the items when I viewed the house, when I went to purchase the replacements I tried to make sure they were of similar specification/same standard. The items would have been 10 months old but they were brand new and never been used, regardless of the duration as this is the time it took for the conveyancing to complete.

so when did the "homeless" man move in?

The items will still be classed as at least a year old.

An item that comes with a guarantee does not mean that the guarantee starts 10 months later when you move/start using or whatever...its from the point of purchase which would have been during the refurbishment by the previous owner.

Even if you were to have been the very first person to have viewed the property in Dec 17 those items were not new when you moved in...I concede they may be "as new" but they wont be brand new which is what you have replaced hem for.

There will be a difference especially is someone is trying to prove they don't owe you for what could easily be seen as your mistake at not arranging appropriate insurance to cover you.

manlovestreet

davidmcn wrote: »

Sorry, are you saying you had to be told that? You thought you might be able to claim for a loss you suffered before you took out insurance?

I knew that obviously, but I was just asking for advice and that was the first thing they stated.

manlovestreet

need_an_answer wrote: »

so when did the "homeless" man move in?

The items will still be classed as at least a year old.

An item that comes with a guarantee does not mean that the guarantee starts 10 months later when you move/start using or whatever...its from the point of purchase.

You are correct, the guarantee starts from point of purchase. But from my point of the view the items were brand new, never been used and in a secure, locked house.. So I should at least expect them in the same condition, maybe with some dust on, but not missing.

The homeless person, I assume would have moved in after my last viewing in September.
I called the police straightaway upon discovering the missing/broken items and they took evidence (fingerprints/ cigarette butts) and they suggested it would have been a homeless person.