Being pursued for debt after property sale - who is liable: buyer or seller?

DayDreamerandGeneralWaster

Pay what you owe.

moneysavinghero

If it's a bill for the water you used when you lived in the property, then just pay up. Surely it cant be a huge sum. No point in starting a war over a small sum that morally you owe even if legally you don't.

user1977

Unless there's something odd in the contract, I would expect you to be liable for all charges relating to your period of ownership. When it gets invoiced shouldn't be relevant. I don't follow your solicitor's argument about it resulting in other liabilities.

eddddy

GDB2222 said:

The standard conditions of sale require that service charges are apportioned, and I'm really quite surprised that your solicitor has taken the view that that does not apply. 

But the standard conditions of sale relate to the contract between the buyer and seller - it's not for the farmer to start apportioning charges.

I suspect that the correct thing to do is:

• The farmer sends the bill to the new owner
• The new owner pays the bill in full
• The new owner asks the old owner to pay them their share
• (Or if the new owner's solicitor had arranged a retention, the old owners share would come out of the retention)

That's how leasehold service charges would work - so I guess this charge would work in a similar way.

So the OP's solicitor would be correct in saying that the OP shouldn't pay the bill.

davilown

Primrose79 said:

I recently sold two freehold cottages that have been in my family for many years.  They are rural cottages that are not connected to mains water, and therefore rely on a neighbouring farmer to provide water from a borehole on his land.  The farmer charges a yearly fee for use of the water in arrears, which is usually produced a few months after the period that was being charged (i.e. if the period was Jan-Dec the bill often did not come until the following May).

The right to the use of this water is detailed in the title of the properties, so there was never any contract between us and the farmer.  The arrangement is, therefore, quite informal, although backed up by the rights detailed in the title.

When we sold the first cottage, we passed all this information onto the buyer’s solicitors during the conveyancing and, as expected, the buyer’s solicitors asked for a retention to cover the water bill for the period that I was owner of the property, which we agreed to.

When we sold the second cottage six months later, however, the second buyer’s solicitors did not ask for any retention.  My solicitor was surprised by this but suggested that they must have somehow missed it.

Now, unfortunately, the owner of the farm has now contacted me directly for payment of the water bill for the second property.  They claim that the billing period was entirely during my ownership and is therefore my liability, despite the fact that they have produced their bill well after the property has been sold.

My solicitors have told me that because there was never any contract between me and the farmer and the only agreement derives from the title documents, that the liability was passed onto the new owner after the sale, regardless of the period that the bill covers.  They have also advised me to definitely not pay the bill as I would potentially be admitting liability for other bills (there are other services that these cottages receive which are ‘off-grid’ and billed in a similar way), and possibly even future repairs.

I contacted the farmer explaining that they needed to send their bill to the current owners, however the farmer has taken this as me shirking responsibility and is now threatening me with small claims court.  He also claims that the land registry still has me as owner, although he was informed of the change of ownership at the time and has referred to ‘the new owners’ in an email to me.  My solicitors have said that the land registry is slow in updating at the moment, especially with ‘complex title issues’ (which this was - the cottages were on a single title under my ownership and had to be split when they were sold separately), and when it is updated it will show that the property has already been sold.

I am basically trying to find out whether my solicitor is correct that liability passed to the new owner upon sale of the property (and that their solicitor has made a mistake in not asking for a retention).  Or is the farmer correct as the ‘billing period’ was under my ownership?  And is the fact that the Land Registry has not been updated at all relevant?

To reiterate:

·        I did not conceal any information during the conveyancing and fully expected the buyer’s solicitor to request a retention to cover these bills (as they did for the first sale), to which I would have happily agreed.

·        This is not a dispute with the new owners of the property.  In fact, I am not sure if they are even aware of this bill, as the farmer has contacted me directly.

·        There is no contract between me and the farmer, but we have paid this bill for many years (when we were owners).

·        It is not so much the cost of this bill that is an issue, but that in accepting liability I may become liable for further bills from both cottages.

Any thoughts on where to go from here would be much appreciated.  I am not sure if the farmer is just being belligerent, or if they have a point.  My solicitors say if they are to get involved in the dispute beyond providing clarity on the conveyancing, then they would have to start charging me.  I am not sure that would be worth it, but I would rather not end up in court over this! 

Really surprised at this - pay your bill!

jimbog

How much is it for?

steampowered

I would just pay it.

I don't really understand why your solicitor thinks that paying this could somehow be admitting liability for unknown bills that don't exist?

If you are worried, just send an email to the farmer alongside your payment saying "I have paid £xxx. Please note that payment does not constitute an acceptance of liability."

teachfast

The farmer is not being belligerent, he is trying to reclaim losses he did not incur!