Small Claims Court - Missing Contents From House Purchase

Cakeguts

I still think that who ever took the carpets out had a key to at least one of the doors.



I suppose that it is always possible that the vendor didn't change the locks and one of the neighbours had a key from a time before the latest vendor owned the house.

lisyloo

I am not a lawyer but I’m with the OP on this.
The fact that he failed to check does not totally mitigate the property being handed over in the state it was not meant to be.

A legal advice line may be able to offer advice on cases that are not covered by the insurance and if the OP has declared it then that should not be an issue either.

HampshireH

Am I reading this right?

A homeless person used a window as a door to get in and out.

Knew not to be home on viewing and to leave by completion and was never seen by the neighbours.

Said homeless person was squatting yet is believed to have stolen all the carpets and cooker hood and magically removed them from the house through a window without being seen.

Did said homeless person also put his new furnishings in his imaginery house? (Imaginary as if he is homeless he would have no need for the "stolen" items).

OP failed to check the property before getting the keys and then tried to claim on a policy which didnt exist at the time

Seems all a little far fetched to be fair. I would love to be the judge presiding on this claim as I imagine they will take one look and wonder what the they are reading.:think:

HampshireH

+1 for the seller removing the stuff

JakeHall

Your understanding of your position is correct.

The seller's confirmations on the completed forms are incorporated into the contract. It doesn't matter whether you checked before exchange - the seller was obliged to sell the property to you as set out in the contract and they didn't.

However, whether you will be successful at court in proving the items were not present at exchange is another matter. Based on the types of missing items being those a seller would care about and not a burglar, I wouldn't be surprised if you were successful. But of course do factor in the stress, time, money and uncertainty involved in bringing a claim and whether perhaps it may just be best to take it on the chin.

need_an_answer

I believe that the OP is still not looking at the issue fully but just focusing in on the tiny bit that relates to their issue.

The reason that its advised that a purchaser checks the property they are purchasing just prior to exchange is not just for damage but exchange signifies the point at which neither party can pull out without large bills and compensating the other party.
Therefore at the point of exchange the purchaser becomes liable for the property and without inspecting in a reasonable timeframe the onus is then put upon them to rectify any issues.

Had the OP inspected and seem the damage it would have put it fairly and squarely back at the vendor to put right.

It wasn't as if the OP was living miles away from the property...one of his posts suggests he lived in the area...to not walk past or visit something you are buying up to a month before you move in could possibly suggest that he wasn't interested in the state it would be handed over to him.
I know when I bought my properties I've gone a few times just to look at them from the outside (and dare I say a peep through the windows if I knew it was empty)afterall its probably the most money a lot of people spend in one go.

When exchange took place I'm reasonably convinced that the damage had been done but the fact that the OP chose not to visit within a few days leading up would indicate that on exchange he was satisfied that the purchase should go ahead and would therefore become responsible for whatever lay behind those walls.


OP...I guess you are still hoping to take this through small claims...please come back once the judgement has been made and update the thread I'm sure lots here would be interested in your experiences of the small claims system and your journey to achieve financial compensation.

Although please remember that even a judgement in your favour is not the end of it if the vendor decides not to pay.

lisyloo

Had the OP inspected and seem the damage it would have put it fairly and squarely back at the vendor to put right.

So in both situation it would the sellers responsibility to put right?
So there is no financial loss to the seller by the buyer not checking?

I don’t think not checking means the OP should loose 100% having put the seller at no greater financial loss.

As regards enforcement, we know the seller has the means to pay. Yes they can make it difficult, very difficult, but there are methods available.

As regards factoring in the stress.
Some of us have a strong sense of fairness and it would be quite stressful for us to let it go. Perhaps this is a character flaw and our cross to bear, ut nevertheless I know I’d prefer to fight and lose (which means closure) rather than have the unfairness hanging over me for the rest of my life.

So if it was me I’d go for it and thank the forum for their warnings about result/enforcement.

I really don’t believe not checking which wouldn’t alter the liability or loss means the Op should forfeit the whole lot.

diggingdude

I do not for one moment believe this was a theft, if it is was all the wiring etc would be ripped out as that's your money. Its obviously the seller. I am not a legal expert but I would have thought they have a duty to sell to you as described, viewing a month before exchange is not a massive time before in the grand scheme of things. Morally you are in the right, whether its worth it I don't know.

How did you manage to exchange/complete without insurance though?

silvercar

diggingdude wrote: »

I do not for one moment believe this was a theft, if it is was all the wiring etc would be ripped out as that's your money. Its obviously the seller. I am not a legal expert but I would have thought they have a duty to sell to you as described, viewing a month before exchange is not a massive time before in the grand scheme of things. Morally you are in the right, whether its worth it I don't know.

How did you manage to exchange/complete without insurance though?

Wouldn't be 'obviously the seller' to me. Could easily be a neighbour.

letitbe90

diggingdude wrote: »

I do not for one moment believe this was a theft, if it is was all the wiring etc would be ripped out as that's your money. Its obviously the seller. I am not a legal expert but I would have thought they have a duty to sell to you as described, viewing a month before exchange is not a massive time before in the grand scheme of things. Morally you are in the right, whether its worth it I don't know.

How did you manage to exchange/complete without insurance though?

Generally an insurance quote to the solicitor is sufficient for exchange/completion to happen on the premise you make sure to buy the insurance at exchange. It is not common for people to actually check you actually brought the insurance, so in that sense it is quite easy to complete without insurance.