We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Dont lie on TA6 form....
Comments
-
The nicest home I lived in was a terrace in London. The area was lovely, the commute short and it had loads of character.SprostonGreenHead said:700k "dream home" is a 2-bed (ish) London terrace.
And we wonder why people can't "get on the ladder".
the worst one was when I thought the bigger the better - lovely house in the countryside. Ended up spending a fortune on it and then selling at a loss.
It depends what your lifestyle is.
2 -
He lived there for a few years and his mum was a keen gardener and nobody noticed a plant which can grow 8 inches a day?
Over the span of several years, JKW would have grown several feet so he must have cut it back to even try and hide it.
He was lying and got found out.
He should have had it treated and removed properly and been honest on the form, the buyer could then decide if it was worth a risk to take. It was right at the back of the garden so once treated, its never going to make its way near the house without you realising it.0 -
It’s certainly a lunatic legal system that allows a claim for £30k to generate £170k in legal fees.No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?1
-
It's been on the TA6 for as long as I've been back working in the industry I think - that's 12 years now. It was definitely on the TA6 I filled in personally last week as well!FreeBear said:
Looking at a revision dated 2013 (3rd edition). Section 7.8 asks about JKW. I suspect the current 4th edition will be the same.diystarter7 said: I think the TA6 must have changed as I dont recall anything re the knotweed
🎉 MORTGAGE FREE (First time!) 30/09/2016 🎉 And now we go again…New mortgage taken 01/09/23 🏡
Balance as at 01/09/23 = £115,000.00 Balance as at 31/12/23 = £112,000.00
Balance as at 31/08/24 = £105,400.00 Balance as at 31/12/24 = £102,500.00
Balance as at 31/08/25 = £ 95,450.00
£100k barrier broken 1/4/25SOA CALCULATOR (for DFW newbies): SOA Calculatorshe/her1 -
Seems reasonable to me. Once JKW has been found on or near a property it puts a lot of people off. Even if it's supposedly been removed, there is always the chance it will come back and have to be dealt with, potentially for decades. There is also the possibility that someone else nearby has it and won't treat it.GDB2222 said:It’s interesting that the damages were assessed as £32k. The cost of treatment is probably just a few £k, so that leaves the assessed diminution in house value as say 3-4%. That is quite a lot for such a small outbreak quite a way from the house.
TBH 4% is about the minimum I'd think was reasonable.2 -
I guess the lesson here is that if you actually did it then it's a good idea not to contest it and just pay up.GDB2222 said:It’s certainly a lunatic legal system that allows a claim for £30k to generate £170k in legal fees.0 -
Sadly, yes. There’s supposed to be a fundamental principle of proportionality, but it clearly didn’t work.Grizebeck said:
This was a multi track case so quite normalGDB2222 said:It’s certainly a lunatic legal system that allows a claim for £30k to generate £170k in legal fees.
The victor in this case may find it is pretty pointless, as he will only get a proportion of his costs reimbursed by the loser. Usually around 70%. So, if the shortfall is more than the damages awarded, he will be out of pocket despite winning.No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?1 -
Didn't this guy buying a 700k house get a survey done?
Why didn't the seller just tick "don't know", all very odd on both sides I must say.
Surprised the seller should be found liable, the buyer should have conducted his own investigations. It's 50/50, certainly not enough for one side to be blamed fully.0 -
Hi
There is an update to this story today in a newspaper. Its got the ex owners version of why they went to court. I can understand why he went to court rather than give the 16k demanded.
Google it if you wish
Thanks0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.7K Spending & Discounts
- 245.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.7K Life & Family
- 259.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards