Japanese Knotweed buyers survey states no risk and not categorised

AnotherJoe

robatwork said:

Davesnave said: If you are unsure that Japanese knotweed exists above or below ground or whether it has previously been managed on the property, please indicate this as ‘Not known’. If No is chosen as an answer the seller must be certain that no rhizome (root) is present in the ground of the property, or within 3 metres of the property boundary even if there are no visible signs above ground. 

Logical conclusion of this term is that we all need to dig up our entire gardens, front rear and side, AND that of all our neighbours, when selling our houses, and then get a botanist in to examine the soil, in order to be able to honestly say No. "Certain" isn't a term that's equivocal in law - and how else would we be certain?

I think this term is unfair, unreasonable and hope it gets challenged in court. It clearly needs to be amended, as nobody can realistically choose "No".

There isa potential defence which I know has been used in second hand car sales, which is that when you, as a "ordinary" seller of a sh car say that there is no mechanical issue with it, that is on your own layman knowledge level and not as if you were a mechanic who has done a full strip down and rebuild of the car to check it's OK. 

robatwork

AnotherJoe said:

robatwork said:

Davesnave said: If you are unsure that Japanese knotweed exists above or below ground or whether it has previously been managed on the property, please indicate this as ‘Not known’. If No is chosen as an answer the seller must be certain that no rhizome (root) is present in the ground of the property, or within 3 metres of the property boundary even if there are no visible signs above ground. 

Logical conclusion of this term is that we all need to dig up our entire gardens, front rear and side, AND that of all our neighbours, when selling our houses, and then get a botanist in to examine the soil, in order to be able to honestly say No. "Certain" isn't a term that's equivocal in law - and how else would we be certain?

I think this term is unfair, unreasonable and hope it gets challenged in court. It clearly needs to be amended, as nobody can realistically choose "No".

There isa potential defence which I know has been used in second hand car sales, which is that when you, as a "ordinary" seller of a sh car say that there is no mechanical issue with it, that is on your own layman knowledge level and not as if you were a mechanic who has done a full strip down and rebuild of the car to check it's OK. 

While I agree that with secondhand cars from a private seller it's caveat emptor, with secondhand cars as a seller you're not signing a guarantee that the car doesn't have a defect in its valve guides. Something you can't know without a professional taking the engine apart. And UK law doesn't confer many rights at all on the buyer.

In house selling, the TR6 form has become unreasonable.

AnotherJoe

robatwork said:

AnotherJoe said:

robatwork said:

Davesnave said: If you are unsure that Japanese knotweed exists above or below ground or whether it has previously been managed on the property, please indicate this as ‘Not known’. If No is chosen as an answer the seller must be certain that no rhizome (root) is present in the ground of the property, or within 3 metres of the property boundary even if there are no visible signs above ground. 

Logical conclusion of this term is that we all need to dig up our entire gardens, front rear and side, AND that of all our neighbours, when selling our houses, and then get a botanist in to examine the soil, in order to be able to honestly say No. "Certain" isn't a term that's equivocal in law - and how else would we be certain?

I think this term is unfair, unreasonable and hope it gets challenged in court. It clearly needs to be amended, as nobody can realistically choose "No".

There isa potential defence which I know has been used in second hand car sales, which is that when you, as a "ordinary" seller of a sh car say that there is no mechanical issue with it, that is on your own layman knowledge level and not as if you were a mechanic who has done a full strip down and rebuild of the car to check it's OK. 

While I agree that with secondhand cars from a private seller it's caveat emptor, with secondhand cars as a seller you're not signing a guarantee that the car doesn't have a defect in its valve guides. Something you can't know without a professional taking the engine apart. And UK law doesn't confer many rights at all on the buyer.

In house selling, the TR6 form has become unreasonable.

This was when selling your car to a garage.

I agree, the form (with those conditions) is beyond unreasonable as it stands, strictly you could  only answer yes or dont know and  no one could answer "no", not even an expert,  without digging up neighbours gardens !

Anyway, on mine, I put "no"

mbugsy18

Just an update. I have got another buyer with a lower offer and I pressed my solicitor to change the TR6 form re the JKW question and I was told to honestly answer the questions. I then said that going with the explanations etc it’s a ridiculous situation especially as I have not noticed any presence in the garden, drains, brickwork and cellar for the years I have lived at the property. I was then told if that’s the case then answer No.
I asked if I could amend just the page with the JKW and now she wants me to do them all again. I am happy to but originally I was asked to redo the fixtures and fittings which haven’t changed.

Sistergold

I think it’s fair to answer No as truly speaking your garden has no Japanese knotweed and you have never had to treat garden for that. So I would also answer No.