Selling changed items after completion

sheramber

LavenderLamb101 said:

They was designer rads that was taken, and was present when I last viewed about 3 months ago. But was replaced with smaller white double convectors. The form just states rads included.

Were the radiators changed before the form was signed?

Seems odd to mention radiators. Did they specify what radiators?

AskAsk

jonnydeppiwish! said:

lincroft1710 said:

I wonder how much it cost the vendor to have all the existing radiators removed and new ones bought and professionally installed?

It’s not that difficult to do and definitely doesn’t need a professional plumber.

yeah, someone with DIY skills could do it.  but if you had to pay a plumber to do it, then £400 labour and the new radiators could cost another £400 - £500, so if the designer ones are very expensive, then the cost of replacement is value to do for the seller.

EssexHebridean

GDB2222 said:

EssexHebridean said:

Something to consider. If the argument about the fixtures and fittings actually being sold stood up, this would mean that every single solicitor out there would be demanding a new TA10 on the day of intended exchange, along with an undertaking from the seller that this form would still be an accurate representation at the time of completion. They don’t - the forms relied on are those completed at an early stage of the process - indeed if nothing has changed, perhaps not even for that particular buyer, if an earlier sale has fallen through. This is because the expectation is that those forms can be relied on. 

Ignore what is said - or not - in the EA blurb, it’s not relevant. 

I’m not sure I understand? The TA10 and TA6 forms do form part of the contract. They can be altered right up to the point of exchange, but unless there’s a change there’s no need for new ones. 

The problem in this case is that the radiators are not on the form. So, they were not specifically mentioned in the contract, and the OP's position falls back on more general concepts, such as not removing fixtures after the contract date. I see nothing to stop the seller altering the property right up to the contract date, which could include changing the rads. Indeed, if a rad sprang a leak, it would be normal to change it. 

In which case I would be questioning why a non standard TA10 form was used - radiators do form part of the standard Law Society form. 

If a rad sprang a leak you would expect it to be changed for one of a similar type. 

AskAsk said:

EssexHebridean said:

Something to consider. If the argument about the fixtures and fittings actually being sold stood up, this would mean that every single solicitor out there would be demanding a new TA10 on the day of intended exchange, along with an undertaking from the seller that this form would still be an accurate representation at the time of completion. They don’t - the forms relied on are those completed at an early stage of the process - indeed if nothing has changed, perhaps not even for that particular buyer, if an earlier sale has fallen through. This is because the expectation is that those forms can be relied on. 

Ignore what is said - or not - in the EA blurb, it’s not relevant. 

i don't think you can use the EA sales stuff for legal proceedings.  i have seen pictures of properties that were before they were decorated on rightmove, or in the middle of being refurbished / decorated as the photographer had gone in to take the photos early on in the process.

to take legal action, you would need tight evidence and saying you saw the radiators on rightmove and wanted those won't be strong enough evidence.  you would be able to do so if you had asked specifically during the conveyancing process whether the designer radiators were going to part of the sale as the fixtures form only states radiators are to be included, it doesn't specifically state what type.

That was why I said that for this point, they are irrelevant. You might use them as evidence of your case, but nothing more. And no the buyer does not need to specifically ask if every individual item is the specific one that they saw on viewing - that would be a ludicrously time consuming nonsense. The onus is on the seller by way of the TA10 form - it has plenty of space for any clarification needed. (Ie we are leaving one free standing heater - we’ve specified which one and where it is located on the TA10.) If the radiators were being changed then this should have been clarified. 

EssexHebridean

sheramber said:

LavenderLamb101 said:

They was designer rads that was taken, and was present when I last viewed about 3 months ago. But was replaced with smaller white double convectors. The form just states rads included.

Were the radiators changed before the form was signed?

Seems odd to mention radiators. Did they specify what radiators?

The form just says “radiators”. If the ones being left were substantially different on those present on viewing, then the expectation is that this should be mentioned on the form.

pinkshoes

sheramber said:

LavenderLamb101 said:

They was designer rads that was taken, and was present when I last viewed about 3 months ago. But was replaced with smaller white double convectors. The form just states rads included.

Were the radiators changed before the form was signed?

Seems odd to mention radiators. Did they specify what radiators?

One would assume that if the form said "rads included" then it could only refer to the radiators viewed by the OP and shown in the EA brochure. Any change to this should have been flagged up before exchange by the vendor so the OP could reduce the price accordingly. 

A friend sold a house with a lovely chandelier style light fitting in the hallway staircase that they were taking with them, so they had to make it clear in the SPIF form that the light would be replaced with a standard bulb, as lights (and radiators) are fixtures. They actually ended up having to leave it as part of the sale as the buyer really wanted it! You can't just take fixed parts of the house with you!

The OP is quite right and entitled to pursue the vendor for the cost of having the original radiators re-installed.

khanny09

Just to be clear about my earlier comment. I was not saying that the online listing or viewing forms part of the contract. Instead, that would be a buyer's evidence that a seller swapped out expensive fixtures for cheap ones and failed to disclose that to the buyer (should the seller be denying they were changed).

Also to be clear, the fixtures sold are not any fixtures that may meet the definition of that type of fixture. They are the fixtures that were represented to the buyer.

As said before OP, you have your own solicitor acting for you and they will have all the relevant facts and know what exactly was and was not disclosed. So it's important to heed their advice in the first instance.

maisie_cat

If nothing else this thread demonstrates the need for a pre exchange viewing. We undertook a 500 mile round trip to view on exchange day.
I know that the house on exchange is what the contract relates to and if the roof had fallen in before exchange I was stuffed.

BungalowBel

I actually don't think the vendors have done anything wrong.  It said 'radiators'.  They have left radiators.  

The buyer has learned from this experience and will do it differently next time.

EssexHebridean

BungalowBel said:

I actually don't think the vendors have done anything wrong.  It said 'radiators'.  They have left radiators.  

The buyer has learned from this experience and will do it differently next time.

That you think something doesn’t make it the case. The sellers have done something wrong. There is no mistake for the buyer to learn from - they’ve, at least as far as their declarations in this thread are concerned, done things correctly. 

user1977

BungalowBel said:

I actually don't think the vendors have done anything wrong.  It said 'radiators'.  They have left radiators.  

So do you think they can similarly change everything else about the house?