Guarantee Rights

Maddyks202

Hi Everyone! 
We purchased our property last year and with the paperwork we can see that the house had the exterior decorated with TopCote render in 2020 costing the former owners around £20,000 and included a 20 year guarantee. The render is cracking and falling off and discoloured making the house look a mess on the outside. Also concerned this will cause other issues a big parts of the render have come off and we live in a very old property so worried about damp issues. The company doesn't respond to emails or calls despite us trying daily for the last month. The company is listed as dissolved in 2018 however, which is before the work was done on the property. Is there anything we can do to get this rectified as this is going to be expensive to redo. Googling I can see two reviews recently of other people having the same problems. 
Thank you!
Maddy

user1977

Did you get advice about the guarantee at the time you bought? It doesn't necessarily pass to you automatically. Who granted the guarantee? If it's a company which is now dissolved (or was already dissolved!) and not backed up by e.g. an insurer then it's worthless.

DullGreyGuy

Which company provided the guarantee? The people that applied it rather than made it presumably? 

Does the guarantee say its transferable anyway?
Does it show there is any insurer or third party backing the guarantee?

Ultimately if there is no one else backing it and the company is defunct then the guarantee dies with the company. If the original owners had paid by Credit Card or such they may have had a claim against their card but you cannot inherit that. 

Aylesbury_Duck

I agree with the others.  The only way you could exercise anything in the guarantee would be:

a) if it is transferable to you
b) if it is transferable, that any action required to transfer it to you was taken
c) if the company offering the guarantee is still in business (sounds like it isn't)
d) if the guarantee is underwritten by another party that's still in business.

Your only option might be your home insurance.  They might only cover it if not addressing it would cause damage to the house, I doubt they'd cover it for cosmetic purposes.

Was there anything in your conveyancing papers about this?  What did your solicitor say?

Do you have legal cover as part of your home insurance?  If so, it would be worth calling them for advice.

born_again

DullGreyGuy said:

Which company provided the guarantee? The people that applied it rather than made it presumably? 

Does the guarantee say its transferable anyway?
Does it show there is any insurer or third party backing the guarantee?

Ultimately if there is no one else backing it and the company is defunct then the guarantee dies with the company. If the original owners had paid by Credit Card or such they may have had a claim against their card but you cannot inherit that. 

Also they could not claim, as they no longer live in the property, so have no benefit from it.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Maddyks202 said:

Hi Everyone! 
 the exterior decorated with TopCote render .... we live in a very old property so worried about damp issues. 

I doubt the warranty covers hacking it all off because it shouldn't have been there in the first place. 

OP if you post over on the DIY board

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/categories/in-my-home-includes-diy-moneysaving

with details of what the house is constructed from along with some photos of the issues with this render stuff someone there might be able to advise on the best course of action to protect the property for the future  

eskbanker

born_again said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Which company provided the guarantee? The people that applied it rather than made it presumably? 

Does the guarantee say its transferable anyway?
Does it show there is any insurer or third party backing the guarantee?

Ultimately if there is no one else backing it and the company is defunct then the guarantee dies with the company. If the original owners had paid by Credit Card or such they may have had a claim against their card but you cannot inherit that. 

Also they could not claim, as they no longer live in the property, so have no benefit from it.

It's probably moot here anyway but in what way does that negate a section 75 claim?  I'm conscious that it's a term that gets bandied around quite a bit, but there is no reference in the legislation to 'having benefit' from the purchase, so if the debtor-creditor-supplier chain was valid at the time of purchase, how (legally) does the debtor waive the right to claim further downstream?

DullGreyGuy

born_again said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Which company provided the guarantee? The people that applied it rather than made it presumably? 

Does the guarantee say its transferable anyway?
Does it show there is any insurer or third party backing the guarantee?

Ultimately if there is no one else backing it and the company is defunct then the guarantee dies with the company. If the original owners had paid by Credit Card or such they may have had a claim against their card but you cannot inherit that. 

Also they could not claim, as they no longer live in the property, so have no benefit from it.

Apologies, the past tense was supposed to imply if they still owner the property not to say they still had any rights. eskbanker said:

born_again said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Which company provided the guarantee? The people that applied it rather than made it presumably? 

Does the guarantee say its transferable anyway?
Does it show there is any insurer or third party backing the guarantee?

Ultimately if there is no one else backing it and the company is defunct then the guarantee dies with the company. If the original owners had paid by Credit Card or such they may have had a claim against their card but you cannot inherit that. 

Also they could not claim, as they no longer live in the property, so have no benefit from it.

It's probably moot here anyway but in what way does that negate a section 75 claim?  I'm conscious that it's a term that gets bandied around quite a bit, but there is no reference in the legislation to 'having benefit' from the purchase, so if the debtor-creditor-supplier chain was valid at the time of purchase, how (legally) does the debtor waive the right to claim further downstream?

Because the Debtor would have had to suffered a loss... as they dont own the property any more they've not sustained a loss

eskbanker

DullGreyGuy said:

born_again said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Which company provided the guarantee? The people that applied it rather than made it presumably? 

Does the guarantee say its transferable anyway?
Does it show there is any insurer or third party backing the guarantee?

Ultimately if there is no one else backing it and the company is defunct then the guarantee dies with the company. If the original owners had paid by Credit Card or such they may have had a claim against their card but you cannot inherit that. 

Also they could not claim, as they no longer live in the property, so have no benefit from it.

Apologies, the past tense was supposed to imply if they still owner the property not to say they still had any rights. eskbanker said:

born_again said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Which company provided the guarantee? The people that applied it rather than made it presumably? 

Does the guarantee say its transferable anyway?
Does it show there is any insurer or third party backing the guarantee?

Ultimately if there is no one else backing it and the company is defunct then the guarantee dies with the company. If the original owners had paid by Credit Card or such they may have had a claim against their card but you cannot inherit that. 

Also they could not claim, as they no longer live in the property, so have no benefit from it.

It's probably moot here anyway but in what way does that negate a section 75 claim?  I'm conscious that it's a term that gets bandied around quite a bit, but there is no reference in the legislation to 'having benefit' from the purchase, so if the debtor-creditor-supplier chain was valid at the time of purchase, how (legally) does the debtor waive the right to claim further downstream?

Because the Debtor would have had to suffered a loss... as they dont own the property any more they've not sustained a loss

OK, yes, I suppose the debtor effectively ceases to be a party to the contract on moving out.

DullGreyGuy

eskbanker said:

DullGreyGuy said:

born_again said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Which company provided the guarantee? The people that applied it rather than made it presumably? 

Does the guarantee say its transferable anyway?
Does it show there is any insurer or third party backing the guarantee?

Ultimately if there is no one else backing it and the company is defunct then the guarantee dies with the company. If the original owners had paid by Credit Card or such they may have had a claim against their card but you cannot inherit that. 

Also they could not claim, as they no longer live in the property, so have no benefit from it.

Apologies, the past tense was supposed to imply if they still owner the property not to say they still had any rights. eskbanker said:

born_again said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Which company provided the guarantee? The people that applied it rather than made it presumably? 

Does the guarantee say its transferable anyway?
Does it show there is any insurer or third party backing the guarantee?

Ultimately if there is no one else backing it and the company is defunct then the guarantee dies with the company. If the original owners had paid by Credit Card or such they may have had a claim against their card but you cannot inherit that. 

Also they could not claim, as they no longer live in the property, so have no benefit from it.

It's probably moot here anyway but in what way does that negate a section 75 claim?  I'm conscious that it's a term that gets bandied around quite a bit, but there is no reference in the legislation to 'having benefit' from the purchase, so if the debtor-creditor-supplier chain was valid at the time of purchase, how (legally) does the debtor waive the right to claim further downstream?

Because the Debtor would have had to suffered a loss... as they dont own the property any more they've not sustained a loss

OK, yes, I suppose the debtor effectively ceases to be a party to the contract on moving out.

They'd still be party to the original contract of sale, the guarantee we cannot say about, but you can only claim actual damages for breach of contract and as they sold the property prior to the issue then they dont have any losses.