Dont lie on TA6 form....

lookstraightahead

SprostonGreenHead said:

700k "dream home" is a 2-bed (ish) London terrace.

And we wonder why people can't "get on the ladder".

The nicest home I lived in was a terrace in London. The area was lovely, the commute short and it had loads of character.
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.

Noneforit999

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. 

GDB2222

It’s certainly a lunatic legal system that allows a claim for £30k to generate £170k in legal fees. 

EssexHebridean

FreeBear said:

diystarter7 said: I think the TA6 must have changed as I dont recall anything re the knotweed

Looking at a revision dated 2013 (3rd edition). Section 7.8 asks about JKW. I suspect the current 4th edition will be the same.

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! 

[Deleted User]

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.

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.

TBH 4% is about the minimum I'd think was reasonable.

Grizebeck

GDB2222 said:

It’s certainly a lunatic legal system that allows a claim for £30k to generate £170k in legal fees. 

This was a multi track case so quite normal

[Deleted User]

GDB2222 said:

It’s certainly a lunatic legal system that allows a claim for £30k to generate £170k in legal fees. 

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

Grizebeck said:

GDB2222 said:

It’s certainly a lunatic legal system that allows a claim for £30k to generate £170k in legal fees. 

This was a multi track case so quite normal

Sadly, yes. There’s supposed to be a fundamental principle of proportionality, but it clearly didn’t work. 

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. 

[Deleted User]

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.

diystarter7

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 

Thanks