Buyers claiming money for damages after completion

greatcrested

waamo said:

GDB2222 said:

davidmcn said:

waamo said:

Davesnave said:

John_ said:

Davesnave said:

bouicca21 said:

Are you in Scotland?

It sounds as if the buyers are in Fantasyland.

An email from the solicitors? Really?

Tempting though it would be, I'd not respond. Let them rack up some more fees; this is going nowhere.

  I had all sorts of things discussed over email with my solicitor on my last purchase.

Strangely enough, so did I, but if I was attempting to put weight behind a claim on a third party I'd put it in a letter.

Perhaps the solicitor may be indicating by this choice that they don't think the claim has a snowball's chance in hell, but they're humouring the vendor....cheaply.

This sounds likely. Any genuine threat of court action must be communicated by mail and a solicitor will know this.

Only if it got to the stage of actually requiring a letter before action. There's nothing noteworthy about an initial communication of a claim being by email.

I appreciate that a LBA is required, but is there really any objection to this being sent by email these days? 

It can only be sent by email if the intended defendant agrees to it beforehand. If they don't agree (and why would you make it easier for them) then it has to be by post.

That applies to official legal correspondance: LBA, court papers etc.

The email in question is just a speculative demand for payment which the sender is presumably hoping will scare the OP into paying without an argument....

NameUnavailable

And that is why it should be ignored.

ciderboy2009

Email them back - "I would refer you to the answer given in Arkell V Pressdram"

waamo

greatcrested said:

waamo said:

GDB2222 said:

davidmcn said:

waamo said:

Davesnave said:

John_ said:

Davesnave said:

bouicca21 said:

Are you in Scotland?

It sounds as if the buyers are in Fantasyland.

An email from the solicitors? Really?

Tempting though it would be, I'd not respond. Let them rack up some more fees; this is going nowhere.

  I had all sorts of things discussed over email with my solicitor on my last purchase.

Strangely enough, so did I, but if I was attempting to put weight behind a claim on a third party I'd put it in a letter.

Perhaps the solicitor may be indicating by this choice that they don't think the claim has a snowball's chance in hell, but they're humouring the vendor....cheaply.

This sounds likely. Any genuine threat of court action must be communicated by mail and a solicitor will know this.

Only if it got to the stage of actually requiring a letter before action. There's nothing noteworthy about an initial communication of a claim being by email.

I appreciate that a LBA is required, but is there really any objection to this being sent by email these days? 

It can only be sent by email if the intended defendant agrees to it beforehand. If they don't agree (and why would you make it easier for them) then it has to be by post.

That applies to official legal correspondance: LBA, court papers etc.

The email in question is just a speculative demand for payment which the sender is presumably hoping will scare the OP into paying without an argument....

Indeed which means it isn't even a threat that this is going to court. It's merely a begging letter.

Shambolic2020

Under consumer right act the buyer is due a refund for property because it not fit for purpose. 

grumiofoundation

Shambolic2020 said:

Under consumer right act the buyer is due a refund for property because it not fit for purpose. 

Um..... nope

93Emilyw

Shambolic2020 said:

Under consumer right act the buyer is due a refund for property because it not fit for purpose. 

Doubt it... Its a door... The building is not condemned... Neither is it as dangerous as they are trying to claim. 

iampetesmith

At least you left them a note of where stuff was, I spent 5 mins trying to get into our house when we had the keys because I didn't know you had to twist them again as you open the door after unlocking it. I also didn't know the circuit breaker for the shed's power was in the living room, and I found an old TV/VHS combo in the loft. Everything else was fine though, but even if there were faults I'd never go after the vendor about it as there would be no case. It's the same here, just ignore it as they won't get anywhere.

If we ever sell our house, I'll invite the buyers to come as often as they like to check things and I'll show them where everything is and how everything works. Looks like you did the same and they still want to chance their arm.

Rural_Puppy

93Emilyw said:

Shambolic2020 said:

Under consumer right act the buyer is due a refund for property because it not fit for purpose. 

Doubt it... Its a door... The building is not condemned... Neither is it as dangerous as they are trying to claim. 

Consumer rights legislation does not apply to house purchases AFAIK

pinkshoes

93Emilyw said:

Shambolic2020 said:

Under consumer right act the buyer is due a refund for property because it not fit for purpose. 

Doubt it... Its a door... The building is not condemned... Neither is it as dangerous as they are trying to claim. 

In which case just write back stating that the door is old, this was pointed out during the second viewing, and has always been like this. It was not dangerous at the point of exchange, so if it has since become dangerous then it was clearly caused by them.