Knotweed - treated and insured - do i need to declare on TA-6?

Disjoint

Hi all - so debating whether to pay for the 10 year insurance policy at the moment for my Japanese Knotweed. It's a £600 policy with a max cap of £3,000 of treatment and valid 10 years, in other words just part of the ongoing rip off that is Japanese knotweed treatment and the baffling stupidity of our government at not addressing it and allowing mortgage companies with getting away by refusing mortgages. 

I read that now that I have treated the knotweed I can simply check that I do not know whether I have knotweed or not on the TA-6 form (the questionnaire filled out to the buyer).
If the buyer then gets knotweed on his land and finds out from a neighbor that I had the garden treated in the past - can they turn against me? (I genuinely don't know whether the knotweed is still there or not, it hasn't showed its ugly head since being treated).

From my perspective: I paid the stupid sticker price to get the knotweed treated. It's gone. If it comes back you can get glysophate on Amazon and just treat them yourself again instead of calling a company to do it, or if I paid for the insurance to have them come back. However, if I must tell that I have knotweed to a future buyer, then I'd rather pay for the insurance and have it included in the sale so that they can have some sort of peace of mind. 

So question is: I have treated the knotweed officially via a certified company. I will write "Do not know" on the survey when it comes to sell and not say anything else. Can the buyer then turn against me on the knotweed issue in the future? Easy to prove I knew about it as we were four properties that got together to address the problem.

teachfast

Will depend on the wording of the question asked.

[Deleted User]

'Has the property been affected by Japanese Knotweed' is the question.  So you will answer 'Yes'.

If the question was 'Is there Japanese Knotweed on the property' then you could answer 'Don't Know' (even though its a bit grey area) 

But thats not the question so you will answer Yes as your property has been affected by it

Disjoint

I might be reading this wrong, but here is the answer on the new TA-6 introduced in 2020. I am reading that I can write not known, but maybe it's my understanding of English that is deficient at the moment.

Question 7.8 The seller should state whether the property is affected by Japanese knotweed. 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. [...] A Japanese knotweed management plan can help to control the spread of Japanese knotweed and manage its regrowth. Japanese knotweed management plans should provide a record of works carried out to control the Japanese knotweed. They can provide reassurance to mortgage lenders who may be concerned about the impact of Japanese knotweed on the value of the property.

Ensure that all works are carried out by a reputable contractor who is able to indemnify the works through provision of an insurance-backed guarantee. Sellers should provide a copy of any Japanese knotweed management plan to the buyer and evidence of insurance cover relating to the plan. 

teachfast

Actually the question on the standard form is,

"Is the property affected by Japanese Knotweed"

Then goes on to ask if a treatment plan is in place if the answer was yes. 

[Deleted User]

 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’

You aren't unsure if it has previously been managed so you cant answer Dont Know. You are 100% certain it has previously been managed 

AdrianC

Disjoint 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’.

I must be parsing that sentence differently to you.

I read it as...

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’

You are sure that it has been treated, because you have the guarantee for the treatment. Therefore you cannot say "not known".

Disjoint

AdrianC said:

Disjoint 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’.

I must be parsing that sentence differently to you.

I read it as...

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’

You are sure that it has been treated, because you have the guarantee for the treatment. Therefore you cannot say "not known".

I got excited a bit too fast... Thanks for clarifying - I was reading it the wrong way initially.
I'll go ahead and cough up the insurance money... It is a clear YES then.

"Is the property affected by Japanese Knotweed" - not sure as I supposedly killed the knotweed so at present there is no Japanese Knotweed that are affecting the property. Althought don't think that will stand in court ))

robatwork

Disjoint said:

Question 7.8 The seller should state whether the property is affected by Japanese knotweed. 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.

This has come up before, and the conclusion is that this is a preposterous clause. It's really impossible (without major excavation of your and neigbouring properties) to ever answer No. The word certain rather than reasonably certain is a doozy. 

AdrianC

At the very simplest level, if it wasn't affected, why is there a guarantee for treatment that wouldn't have been needed...?

[Deleted User]

robatwork said:

Disjoint said:

Question 7.8 The seller should state whether the property is affected by Japanese knotweed. 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.

This has come up before, and the conclusion is that this is a preposterous clause. It's really impossible (without major excavation of your and neigbouring properties) to ever answer No. The word certain rather than reasonably certain is a doozy. 

Guidance changed to point sellers towards 'dont know' and then put the onus on the buyer to investigate.  You are right, 'No' is an impossible stance to take