We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
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.
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 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!
Legal advice [House purchase]
Options
Comments
-
I get it, User and Eddy - they are different 'consumer' situations, and have different protections and rights.
It surprises me, that's all. A full structural survey would likely not have exposed the incorrect construction of the roofs - or the inadequacy of the hidden foundations as in my more extreme, made up example. Neither might have been 'detectable' - until they failed. Once they failed, then what? No-one is liable?
I'm astonished.0 -
ThisIsWeird said:
Once they failed, then what? No-one is liable?
I doubt it's much consolation, but here's somebody who owns a flat in a 5 year old block of flats. Their roof has failed due to bad design and bad workmanship. It's excluded from their 10 year warranty. The repair cost is £145k.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6300622/new-build-flats-only-4-years-old-owners-charged-with-425-000-repairs-no-insurance/p1
This is easy to say with hindsight - but in your case, did you investigate whether your house built by a reputable builder with a good track record?
And it sounds like your house might have had a cheaper, lower quality warranty - which doesn't impose such strict rules on the builder.
Even if a surveyor couldn't have seen the flat roof construction, maybe they might have made a comment like "there is general evidence of poor construction and workmanship" - which might have rung alarm bells.
1 -
It's been a busy week, so apologies for the slow response! I appreciate the debate happening over consumer rights, this is a huge learning opportunity for me.
As for some of the questions around warranty documents. My solicitors forwarded them from the seller's, so I had sight of them before exchange. They didn't highlight the limitations, although looking back through them, the warranty cover note made this obvious.
And these snippets from the Report on Title makes me think the solicitors have covered themselves:
Especially the last paragraph, as when my roof started leaking, the neighbor mentioned she spotted the previous owner up on the flat roof a few months before applying aquapol and doing self-repairs.
I feel stupid reading back on these documents, but I guess I had first time buyer optimism.. lessons learned for future I guess! Never trust anyone 😅
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards