Complaints after settle (Scotland)

davidmcn

s88 said:

davidmcn said:

s88 said:

They did state that further action (ie refuting claims to purchasers solicitor) would enact further costs which I accept, and is also the reason why I have decided to call the purchaser to see what they are actually wanting me to do.

The even cheaper option is to do absolutely nothing. Why would you want to find what they want you to do? You don't, as far as I can see, have to do a thing.

Rural_Puppy said:

Say nothing to the buyers. Leave it alone. The house belongs to them now. You are only liable if something does not work properly, and the cost of repair is more than £400. None of the items you listed seem above that. Blown DG  units that were apparant at the time of viewing is "buyer beware" territory.

I appreciate the advice, just concerned regarding any recourse. Everything does indeed work, which is why I would appreciate an actual conversation with my solicitor with them explaining what my options are and what is recommended in regards to the legal system and missives. The cost of all complaints may be over £400 all together, but who determines the cost? Unless I'm misunderstanding and the £400 threshold only applies to plumbing, electrical and similar items - not superficial things like condensation inbetween double glazing, slightly stained wall, a door catching and awkward window handle.

I've never been in this situation before, and it's causing unnecessary stress. I think I am correct in saying that if issues are not stated in the missives, then I'm under no obligation to correct or compensate for these issues if not rectified by settlement. Even if the issues were raised during viewing, a 'gentleman's agreement' can be broken with no recourse.

Yes, you are misunderstanding.

The £400 threshold applies only to the things which would be legitimate claims in terms of the missives - which out of the items they've mentioned, as I said above, appear to be only (arguably) the plumbing element. And even that seems doubtful if it was working on the date of entry and stopped working some time afterwards. Everything else is completely irrelevant. Ignore it.

You do not need to respond. At all.

Like I said above, even (probably) legitimate post-settlement claims tend to fall into a black hole, because it's simply not worth the cost and hassle of pursuing them.

s88

davidmcn said:

Yes, you are misunderstanding.

The £400 threshold applies only to the things which would be legitimate claims in terms of the missives - which out of the items they've mentioned, as I said above, appear to be only (arguably) the plumbing element. And even that seems doubtful if it was working on the date of entry and stopped working some time afterwards. Everything else is completely irrelevant. Ignore it.

You do not need to respond. At all.

Like I said above, even (probably) legitimate post-settlement claims tend to fall into a black hole, because it's simply not worth the cost and hassle of pursuing them.

Yes, the bathtub drainage complaint is rubbish. There was also a complain that a radiator didn't work, but it was working during viewing only to be switched off after, as the room was used for storage pending the moving day. Again, this is a non issue as far as I'm concerned as it worked fine.

A friend has told me that it's unlikely anything would come of the complaints if I didn't rectify them as it's likely to be an expense simply not worth pursuing for the purchaser due to virtually no legal standing. The outcome is more than likely to be complaints nullified, with a hefty legal bill on their part. I can absolutely understand this, but it doesn't ease the stress when I have others I know personally giving advice all along the spectrum of fixing everything and fixing so much, to fixing nothing.

Wkmg

Why can’t you just ask your lawyer’s advice as to whether you are legally required to rectify anything? They can’t be that bad, can they?

davidmcn

s88 said:

davidmcn said:

Yes, you are misunderstanding.

The £400 threshold applies only to the things which would be legitimate claims in terms of the missives - which out of the items they've mentioned, as I said above, appear to be only (arguably) the plumbing element. And even that seems doubtful if it was working on the date of entry and stopped working some time afterwards. Everything else is completely irrelevant. Ignore it.

You do not need to respond. At all.

Like I said above, even (probably) legitimate post-settlement claims tend to fall into a black hole, because it's simply not worth the cost and hassle of pursuing them.

I have others I know personally giving advice all along the spectrum of fixing everything and fixing so much, to fixing nothing.

Do those who are advising you to fix things actually have any expertise in this area, and/or explained their rationale?

s88

Wkmg said:

Why can’t you just ask your lawyer’s advice as to whether you are legally required to rectify anything? They can’t be that bad, can they?

They referred me to the Scottish Standard Clause's (clause 4 - regarding essential items left in working order) and have told me what may happen if there are problems that aren't rectified and stated it's something I need to consider from both sides & the potential legal costs involved. Between the lines it sounds like they are saying 'sort it between yourselves'. This is what they are recommending after all. I will ask again today

davidmcn said:

s88 said:

I have others I know personally giving advice all along the spectrum of fixing everything and fixing so much, to fixing nothing.

Do those who are advising you to fix things actually have any expertise in this area, and/or explained their rationale?

No expertise in the area but more an ethical point of view - 'if you knew there were issues, then really you should have fixed them beforehand'. As I've stated, I may only address the staining as that happened inbetween viewing and DoE. Windows & doors have not been marked faulty whatsoever in home report and were of working condition when leaving the property, and all plumbling was in fine working order before leaving the property.

davidmcn

s88 said:

davidmcn said:

s88 said:

I have others I know personally giving advice all along the spectrum of fixing everything and fixing so much, to fixing nothing.

Do those who are advising you to fix things actually have any expertise in this area, and/or explained their rationale?

No expertise in the area but more an ethical point of view - 'if you knew there were issues, then really you should have fixed them beforehand'.

Sorry, but that's absurd - have they never bought or sold properties before? Unless you're dealing with newbuild properties, you don't expect to buy something which is in perfect order, other than a big list of every trivial defect. I would say it would be downright unethical for a buyer to demand a seller compensate them for every defect, rather than accepting the usual position of satisfying themselves about the condition of the property.

s88

I spoke with them over the phone tonight, they were very unreasonable and expect all complaints to be rectified. Their back was against the wall from the get go, saying they have paid alot of money for the house and expect it to be working ok, to which I replied everything was in working order on departure and the fact it's a second hand house. I tried to reason with them and talk about their complaints but they were not willing to listen, continually repeating the faults.

I'm going to call the law firm tomorrow and ask to speak with a more senior representative about refuting the claims as I do not have confidence in the trainee I am currently dealing with.

TripleH

Apologies if it has been mentioned, but is the property a 'first time buyer' type place? It might be a case of inexperienced buyers in their first home, used to renting and not used to the responsibility of fixing everything that goes wrong themselves? They may also not fully understand the rules applicable to Scotland or rather 'misread' to get the answer they want?

Rural_Puppy

A number of posters suggested to you that you should not talk to the buyers. I doubt that doing so has helped your stress levels. From what you said in your posts, you have no legal liability to them. They got what they paid for as detailed in the contract that was agreed. The fact that they can't or won't  understand that is not your problem. I think you talking to them is only going to antagonise matters. Leave it alone. Advise your solicitor you do not accept any liability under the contract. But you were never under any obligation to respond to them at all. Any contact simply risks further escalation. 

s88

Yes, my logic was to try reason with them and perhaps offer a gesture of goodwill, but their belligerence has left me with egg on my face. They mentioned about going through lawyers, so I tried to deescalate the situation as this will just lead to unnecessary costs for us both, but they've left me no choice