Dont lie on TA6 form....

Exodi

Deleted_User said:

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.

I mean if we take the article at face value, then there were two surveys done on the house without either identifying the japanese knotweed HOWEVER after digging out my last survey and searching for it, it states:

"We have not carried out a detailed inspection for Japanese Knotweed or Himalayan Balsam. You should be aware that these plants cause damage to buildings and where identified, mortgage lending is likely to be unavailable. Treatment, eradication and a guarantee are likely to be required prior to lending. We would recommend that you arrange for a survey of your property and garden by a specialist prior to exchange."

I'm suprised that you're suprised the seller should be found liable. If the buyer visited in the winter, or after the seller had just cut it down, it would have been impossible to identify. Unless you expect every buyer should have to conduct a specialist JKW survey on the off-chance that the seller is trying to hoodwink them?

JReacher1

I would have no idea if I had Japanese knotweed. 

fourmarks

JReacher1 said:

I would have no idea if I had Japanese knotweed. 

A quick check under the armpits should tell you. :-)

Exodi

JReacher1 said:

I would have no idea if I had Japanese knotweed. 

Then you would answer 'I dont know' instead of 'No' on a TA6 form.

As the barristers puts it "by ticking "No", the defendant chose to positively assert there was no knotweed at the property and thereby made a misrepresentation"

[Deleted User]

Exodi said:

Deleted_User said:

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.

I mean if we take the article at face value, then there were two surveys done on the house without either identifying the japanese knotweed HOWEVER after digging out my last survey and searching for it, it states:

"We have not carried out a detailed inspection for Japanese Knotweed or Himalayan Balsam. You should be aware that these plants cause damage to buildings and where identified, mortgage lending is likely to be unavailable. Treatment, eradication and a guarantee are likely to be required prior to lending. We would recommend that you arrange for a survey of your property and garden by a specialist prior to exchange."

I'm suprised that you're suprised the seller should be found liable. If the buyer visited in the winter, or after the seller had just cut it down, it would have been impossible to identify. Unless you expect every buyer should have to conduct a specialist JKW survey on the off-chance that the seller is trying to hoodwink them?

Yes I would expect that as you are buying something which is £700,000. We on here always recommend a survey at least, why is that?

elsien

From the Daily Mail.

"It was hidden by this big bush which sort of stopped it from growing and totally hid it.

"You can't expect a seller to be a horticulturist, but if it was obvious I would have noticed it. How can everyone be expected to look in every inch of their garden?”

I live in an area with Japanese knotweed. It’s twice as tall as I am. House up the road has it growing behind the shed and you can see it waving over the top of the fence. It is pretty hard to miss. If you’d only been there a year or so, maybe, but he’s been there since 2015. The knotweed in my neighbours garden had spread halfway across the garden before I took it in hand, and that was only over a 12 months period. 

If it’s not disturbed it doesn’t spread as much but then it grows tall. I’m not buying that he didn’t know it was there.

Exodi

Deleted_User said:

Exodi said:

Deleted_User said:

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.

I mean if we take the article at face value, then there were two surveys done on the house without either identifying the japanese knotweed HOWEVER after digging out my last survey and searching for it, it states:

"We have not carried out a detailed inspection for Japanese Knotweed or Himalayan Balsam. You should be aware that these plants cause damage to buildings and where identified, mortgage lending is likely to be unavailable. Treatment, eradication and a guarantee are likely to be required prior to lending. We would recommend that you arrange for a survey of your property and garden by a specialist prior to exchange."

I'm suprised that you're suprised the seller should be found liable. If the buyer visited in the winter, or after the seller had just cut it down, it would have been impossible to identify. Unless you expect every buyer should have to conduct a specialist JKW survey on the off-chance that the seller is trying to hoodwink them?

Yes I would expect that as you are buying something which is £700,000. We on here always recommend a survey at least, why is that?

This is such a ridiculous point of view, I had to dig deep for the motiviation to respond to it.

If you'd ever got a survey done, you'd know they absolve themselves of much responsibility by recommending specialist surveys for most things: electric survey, gas survey, drain survey, damp survey, JKW survey, etc. Most buyers only entertain these if there is cause for concern on one of these fields - e.g. if the electrics haven't been updated in 50 years, there is mould on the ceilings, or the seller responded 'I don't know' on the TA6 regarding JKW and you've noticed a peculiar tall green plant growing outside.

JKW grows from deep rhizomes (I had to dig out about a skip full of bamboo when I moved into my last house house, which is quite similar in nature, and some of the holes I dug were about 3ft deep). If a buyer was to cut the JKW prior to a viewing, it would be impossible to tell it was there without digging the whole garden up during a viewing. This is why it features on the TA6 form - it is generally incredibly obvious if you have it.

Your suggestion that every single prospective buyer should have to fork out for a specialist Japanese Knotweed Survey in every single prospective purchase just in case the seller is trying to pull a fast one and knowingly made a false declaration on a TA6 is utterly ludicrous.

So I'll counter your loaded question with the same:

The TA6 form asks 'Is the property affected by Japanese knotweed?' even though buyers could get specialist surveys to check for it, why is that?