Legal advice [House purchase]

MobileSaver

ThisIsWeird said:

I have no idea how scenarios like this, involving buildings and constructions, differ in consumer rights with other purchased 'goods' purchased products

Most UK consumer laws define goods as "tangible moveable items" which is why property is not covered under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 etc.

However the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 does include "immovable property" which means you can make a claim if the seller is in breach of contract and/or lied when answering questions; essentially though it is up to you to ask the right questions in the first place.

In the OP's case they took a gamble and didn't get a survey so didn't know which questions to ask - c'est la vie.

Keep_pedalling

silvercar said:

sourfn2 said:

To confirm, I haven't yet directly challenged the solicitors about their negligence in reading through the warranty documents.

You could put in a complaint to them. All solicitors have a complaints procedure.

Alter_ego said:

sourfn2 said:

To confirm, I haven't yet directly challenged the solicitors about their negligence in reading through the warranty documents.

Did you tell the solicitor there was a flat roof? If not how could they know?

If there is specific mention that the flat roof doesn’t fall under the warranty, then that’s the clue that it exists. If it just fails to mention th e flat roof then they wouldn’t know.

I doubt it, the clause is probably a blanket one to cover any house with one rather than a clause for this specific house. 

eddddy

MobileSaver said:

However the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 does include "immovable property" which means you can make a claim if the seller is in breach of contract and/or lied when answering questions; essentially though it is up to you to ask the right questions in the first place.

In the OP's case they took a gamble and didn't get a survey so didn't know which questions to ask - c'est la vie.

It's probably worth clarifying some of the details.

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 applies to businesses (when they sell to consumers).

The OP bought their house from a private individual.

But as I mentioned previously, Estate Agents and Developers are businesses - so the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 applies to them,




There's a completely different area of law which does apply to all house sale/purchase contracts - that's Contract Law. That's what deals with breach of contract.

There's also the Misrepresentation Act 1967 which, in theory, seems to apply to house sale/purchase contracts, as well.

 

MobileSaver

eddddy said:

MobileSaver said:

However the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 does include "immovable property" which means you can make a claim if the seller is in breach of contract and/or lied when answering questions; essentially though it is up to you to ask the right questions in the first place.

In the OP's case they took a gamble and didn't get a survey so didn't know which questions to ask - c'est la vie.

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 applies to businesses (when they sell to consumers). The OP bought their house from a private individual.

Good point! The OP mentioned contacting the developer and taking them to court so I missed that they actually bought from a private individual.

user1977

eddddy said:

ThisIsWeird said:

I have no idea how scenarios like this, involving buildings and constructions, differ in consumer rights with other purchased 'goods' purchased products such as home appliances, cars, etc. - but with the latter, there will almost certainly be a valid claim outwith any warranties if it can be demonstrated that the 'fault' was present from manufacture.

Sourfn would appear to have a good case if that applies; he seems to have pretty good evidence of incorrect construction.

2. The Act doesn't apply to land and houses anyway (even if you buy them from a trader - e.g. a developer)...

The main reason for the exemption being that this is just about the only normal transaction where even consumers will employ lawyers to give them independent advice and negotiation on what they're signing up to.

Plus these aren't impulse purchases, you'll (typically) get a survey too, etc.

TripleH

As we're finding out, signed off doesn't mean everything is hunky dory.

The idiot claiming to be a project manager for our site loves using 'it was signed off' as his argument that the defects we gave aren't defects but then he tried arguing the big cylinder in our cupboard full of very warm water and including a heating element wasn't a hot water tank.

If the roof was as bad as stated and you have it in writing that it shouldn't have been signed off, maybe raise a complaint about the party who did sign it. You may not get anything yourself from it but could stop others getting screwed over.

ThisIsWeird

I didn't imagine it would be within the CRA as such, but wondered if there was a scenario where some such protection could be implied as it shares some similarities, such as (a) it is an 'item' which did come with a warranty (tho' expired), and (b) it can seemingly be demonstrated that it was faulty from production. IE, an inherent fault, something that was almost certainly bound to fail at some point due to the manufacturing defect.

It seems astonishing that there isn't some comeback. Taken to a more extreme example - say the founds were completely inadequate and the house lasted the 10 year warranty period before falling down - no comeback?! Surely that couldn't be right? In which case, who would be to 'blame' - the site surveyor? Build Control? The actual builders?

The OP has the cause, and it was a fault from day one. In normal consumer law, if a fault can be shown to have existed from production, then the actual warranty period is moot - a claim would be valid.

p00hsticks

sourfn2 said:

To confirm, I haven't yet directly challenged the solicitors about their negligence in reading through the warranty documents.

Did you have sight of the warranty documents youself prior to exchange ?

user1977

ThisIsWeird said:

It seems astonishing that there isn't some comeback. Taken to a more extreme example - say the founds were completely inadequate and the house lasted the 10 year warranty period before falling down - no comeback?! Surely that couldn't be right? In which case, who would be to 'blame' - the site surveyor? Build Control? The actual builders?

None of them. Your own surveyor would most likely be liable for not noticing a fundamental structural problem, but that assumes you weren't daft enough to buy the property without getting it surveyed.

The point is that there is not a need for implied liability, because you have the opportunity to make your own checks and consider the terms of whatever warranties you are (or aren't) getting.

eddddy

ThisIsWeird said:

I didn't imagine it would be within the CRA as such, but wondered if there was a scenario where some such protection could be implied as it shares some similarities, such as (a) it is an 'item' which did come with a warranty (tho' expired), and (b) it can seemingly be demonstrated that it was faulty from production. IE, an inherent fault, something that was almost certainly bound to fail at some point due to the manufacturing defect.

It seems astonishing that there isn't some comeback. Taken to a more extreme example - say the founds were completely inadequate and the house lasted the 10 year warranty period before falling down - no comeback?! Surely that couldn't be right? In which case, who would be to 'blame' - the site surveyor? Build Control? The actual builders?

The OP has the cause, and it was a fault from day one. In normal consumer law, if a fault can be shown to have existed from production, then the actual warranty period is moot - a claim would be valid.

Without wanting to get too philosophical... 

Every 'right' and every 'protection' that you have (as a person, as a consumer, as a house buyer, as a business etc) is because of a specific law or a specific contract term (combined with contract law).

If you want to 'force' somebody to do something - like pay for your flat roof repairs - you have to find a law or a contract term that says they must do that.

Based on what the OP has said, in their case, there isn't such a law or contract term.



(If, for example, you think there should be a law which should make the developer pay for things like the OP's flat roof repair - you should lobby your MP or Parliament to change an existing law or create a new law.)