Damage to a house before completion

MalMonroe

Hi, I'm also inclined to agree with doodling, above.

People employed by the vendor caused the damage. And replacing a ceiling should not cost £3k. A few years ago, we had a ceiling removed, filled with insulation and then replaced for a round figure of £1k - as sound insulation because we are in a ground floor flat, one of only two.

It seems as if somebody has ripped somebody off here and I'm wondering if the vendor and the man with his van were in cahoots.

I really would be chasing the vendor. The fact that the man and van has disappeared is irrelevant (the vendor has to know where he is, though) because he was hired by the vendor to do a competent job. Normally the removal firm would have to cough up because when they are a proper firm of removers, they will have the appropriate insurance.

I have learned such a lot about house moving and when to buy insurance from this forum but I'm very sorry that it's been at your expense, OP. 

I do hope you can get some, if not all, of your money back. That's a lot of money for a ceiling. And also, what a terrible thing to happen just before you move into your new home. 

Good luck. But I would definitely have a bash at getting some refund. I don't like that vendor's attitude! If that had been me, I'd have felt really awful and would have had to pay for the replacement. Then possibly claim from the old M&V later. But that's just me.

And this is just all my own thoughts and opinions. I wish you all the very best, whichever course of action you choose to take.

TopDoc

I am taken aback by the extent of interest in this case, and thank all for their comments and thoughts. Just for interest it may be helpful if I explain a few matters of fact to address some of the points made in various posts. 
1. The damage occurred a few hours BEFORE completion. This is not denied by the vendors.
2. We completely acknowledge that we should have insured from exchange, rather than from completion. We also accept that the failing is ours (we simply did not know this, it was our first house purchase) and accept that our solicitor probably told us this, or it was buried in documents we did not read carefully enough. mea culpa. This of course explains why our insurers denied liability. 
3. The damage to the ceiling was extensive. It included damage to original coving that required a specialist contractor. We obtained two quotes, broadly similar. I do not think there is really any issue with the cost. 
4. The "man with a van" was exactly that. He had disappeared before we arrived on the scene. The vendors (who contracted him to do the work) would not give us his contact details and it is extremely unlikely that he had insurance. In any case, he is the agent of the vendors who are liable for his actions. 
5. I have obtained some legal advice which, albeit is preliminary at this stage, advises that irrespective of the insurance issue the vendors have failed in their duty to take reasonable care and are therefore liable. At this stage I propose to make an application to the small claims procedure in the county court, but this will be subject to further legal advice before I proceed. 

molenpad

TopDoc said:

I am taken aback by the extent of interest in this case, and thank all for their comments and thoughts. Just for interest it may be helpful if I explain a few matters of fact to address some of the points made in various posts. 
1. The damage occurred a few hours BEFORE completion. This is not denied by the vendors.
2. We completely acknowledge that we should have insured from exchange, rather than from completion. We also accept that the failing is ours (we simply did not know this, it was our first house purchase) and accept that our solicitor probably told us this, or it was buried in documents we did not read carefully enough. mea culpa. This of course explains why our insurers denied liability. 
3. The damage to the ceiling was extensive. It included damage to original coving that required a specialist contractor. We obtained two quotes, broadly similar. I do not think there is really any issue with the cost. 
4. The "man with a van" was exactly that. He had disappeared before we arrived on the scene. The vendors (who contracted him to do the work) would not give us his contact details and it is extremely unlikely that he had insurance. In any case, he is the agent of the vendors who are liable for his actions. 
5. I have obtained some legal advice which, albeit is preliminary at this stage, advises that irrespective of the insurance issue the vendors have failed in their duty to take reasonable care and are therefore liable. At this stage I propose to make an application to the small claims procedure in the county court, but this will be subject to further legal advice before I proceed. 

The "man in van" is either non-existent (they damaged the floor/ceiling themselves) or a family member/friend they don't want to shop in. 

There is no conceivable reason that they could not give you the information of the "man and van" so you can enquire about his liability insurance.

user1977

molenpad said:

TopDoc said:

I am taken aback by the extent of interest in this case, and thank all for their comments and thoughts. Just for interest it may be helpful if I explain a few matters of fact to address some of the points made in various posts. 
1. The damage occurred a few hours BEFORE completion. This is not denied by the vendors.
2. We completely acknowledge that we should have insured from exchange, rather than from completion. We also accept that the failing is ours (we simply did not know this, it was our first house purchase) and accept that our solicitor probably told us this, or it was buried in documents we did not read carefully enough. mea culpa. This of course explains why our insurers denied liability. 
3. The damage to the ceiling was extensive. It included damage to original coving that required a specialist contractor. We obtained two quotes, broadly similar. I do not think there is really any issue with the cost. 
4. The "man with a van" was exactly that. He had disappeared before we arrived on the scene. The vendors (who contracted him to do the work) would not give us his contact details and it is extremely unlikely that he had insurance. In any case, he is the agent of the vendors who are liable for his actions. 
5. I have obtained some legal advice which, albeit is preliminary at this stage, advises that irrespective of the insurance issue the vendors have failed in their duty to take reasonable care and are therefore liable. At this stage I propose to make an application to the small claims procedure in the county court, but this will be subject to further legal advice before I proceed. 

The "man in van" is either non-existent (they damaged the floor/ceiling themselves) or a family member/friend they don't want to shop in. 

There is no conceivable reason that they could not give you the information of the "man and van" so you can enquire about his liability insurance.

Think that's a red herring though - how would the OP have any claim against their vendor's contractor?

OP, you still haven't clarified why you seem to be accepting that your own insurer isn't liable.

jonnydeppiwish!

eddddy said:

Also... thinking more about this....  Are you sure that the seller is telling you the truth? 

It sounds a bit improbable that dropping a wardrobe would make a ceiling fall down.

Not to mention the mysterious disappearing man and van.


(So the man with the van caused a huge amount of damage, and the seller just let him walk away without getting any contact details? How did he find the man with the van in the first place?)

Have to agree - I think there’s more an issue with the floor than the wardrobe. 

Did you have a survey completed?

NameUnavailable

user1977 said:

OP, you still haven't clarified why you seem to be accepting that your own insurer isn't liable.

They didn't insure it until they completed and they've said this happened prior to completion.

Small claims is probably the only viable option here - you need to issue a demand for payment first and give them a week or two to pay or come to some agreement, then a final demand and then go to the next stage.

Be aware that winning your case at the court and actually getting paid are different matters however!

molenpad

user1977 said:

molenpad said:

TopDoc said:

I am taken aback by the extent of interest in this case, and thank all for their comments and thoughts. Just for interest it may be helpful if I explain a few matters of fact to address some of the points made in various posts. 
1. The damage occurred a few hours BEFORE completion. This is not denied by the vendors.
2. We completely acknowledge that we should have insured from exchange, rather than from completion. We also accept that the failing is ours (we simply did not know this, it was our first house purchase) and accept that our solicitor probably told us this, or it was buried in documents we did not read carefully enough. mea culpa. This of course explains why our insurers denied liability. 
3. The damage to the ceiling was extensive. It included damage to original coving that required a specialist contractor. We obtained two quotes, broadly similar. I do not think there is really any issue with the cost. 
4. The "man with a van" was exactly that. He had disappeared before we arrived on the scene. The vendors (who contracted him to do the work) would not give us his contact details and it is extremely unlikely that he had insurance. In any case, he is the agent of the vendors who are liable for his actions. 
5. I have obtained some legal advice which, albeit is preliminary at this stage, advises that irrespective of the insurance issue the vendors have failed in their duty to take reasonable care and are therefore liable. At this stage I propose to make an application to the small claims procedure in the county court, but this will be subject to further legal advice before I proceed. 

The "man in van" is either non-existent (they damaged the floor/ceiling themselves) or a family member/friend they don't want to shop in. 

There is no conceivable reason that they could not give you the information of the "man and van" so you can enquire about his liability insurance.

Think that's a red herring though - how would the OP have any claim against their vendor's contractor?

OP, you still haven't clarified why you seem to be accepting that your own insurer isn't liable.

Surely if the contractor damaged the property, and had valid liability insurance, it doesn't matter who owns the property. I'm probably wrong.

user1977

molenpad said:

user1977 said:

molenpad said:

TopDoc said:

I am taken aback by the extent of interest in this case, and thank all for their comments and thoughts. Just for interest it may be helpful if I explain a few matters of fact to address some of the points made in various posts. 
1. The damage occurred a few hours BEFORE completion. This is not denied by the vendors.
2. We completely acknowledge that we should have insured from exchange, rather than from completion. We also accept that the failing is ours (we simply did not know this, it was our first house purchase) and accept that our solicitor probably told us this, or it was buried in documents we did not read carefully enough. mea culpa. This of course explains why our insurers denied liability. 
3. The damage to the ceiling was extensive. It included damage to original coving that required a specialist contractor. We obtained two quotes, broadly similar. I do not think there is really any issue with the cost. 
4. The "man with a van" was exactly that. He had disappeared before we arrived on the scene. The vendors (who contracted him to do the work) would not give us his contact details and it is extremely unlikely that he had insurance. In any case, he is the agent of the vendors who are liable for his actions. 
5. I have obtained some legal advice which, albeit is preliminary at this stage, advises that irrespective of the insurance issue the vendors have failed in their duty to take reasonable care and are therefore liable. At this stage I propose to make an application to the small claims procedure in the county court, but this will be subject to further legal advice before I proceed. 

The "man in van" is either non-existent (they damaged the floor/ceiling themselves) or a family member/friend they don't want to shop in. 

There is no conceivable reason that they could not give you the information of the "man and van" so you can enquire about his liability insurance.

Think that's a red herring though - how would the OP have any claim against their vendor's contractor?

OP, you still haven't clarified why you seem to be accepting that your own insurer isn't liable.

Surely if the contractor damaged the property, and had valid liability insurance, it doesn't matter who owns the property. I'm probably wrong.

The insurance is for liability which they have, it's not something everybody can dip into for things which might have been caused by the contractor - they don't have a duty of care towards future owners of the property, and they weren't contracted by the OP.

user1977

NameUnavailable said:

user1977 said:

OP, you still haven't clarified why you seem to be accepting that your own insurer isn't liable.

They didn't insure it until they completed and they've said this happened prior to completion.

That's fair enough if they waited until after completion (and the damage) had happened before arranging the insurance, but (as discussed above) the policy might have already been arranged to start at the beginning of the day of completion.

doodling

Hi,

molenpad said:

user1977 said:

molenpad said:

TopDoc said:

I am taken aback by the extent of interest in this case, and thank all for their comments and thoughts. Just for interest it may be helpful if I explain a few matters of fact to address some of the points made in various posts. 
1. The damage occurred a few hours BEFORE completion. This is not denied by the vendors.
2. We completely acknowledge that we should have insured from exchange, rather than from completion. We also accept that the failing is ours (we simply did not know this, it was our first house purchase) and accept that our solicitor probably told us this, or it was buried in documents we did not read carefully enough. mea culpa. This of course explains why our insurers denied liability. 
3. The damage to the ceiling was extensive. It included damage to original coving that required a specialist contractor. We obtained two quotes, broadly similar. I do not think there is really any issue with the cost. 
4. The "man with a van" was exactly that. He had disappeared before we arrived on the scene. The vendors (who contracted him to do the work) would not give us his contact details and it is extremely unlikely that he had insurance. In any case, he is the agent of the vendors who are liable for his actions. 
5. I have obtained some legal advice which, albeit is preliminary at this stage, advises that irrespective of the insurance issue the vendors have failed in their duty to take reasonable care and are therefore liable. At this stage I propose to make an application to the small claims procedure in the county court, but this will be subject to further legal advice before I proceed. 

The "man in van" is either non-existent (they damaged the floor/ceiling themselves) or a family member/friend they don't want to shop in. 

There is no conceivable reason that they could not give you the information of the "man and van" so you can enquire about his liability insurance.

Think that's a red herring though - how would the OP have any claim against their vendor's contractor?

OP, you still haven't clarified why you seem to be accepting that your own insurer isn't liable.

Surely if the contractor damaged the property, and had valid liability insurance, it doesn't matter who owns the property. I'm probably wrong.

The contractor only has liability to the owner of the property at the time which was the vendor; they owe absolutely nothing to the new owner.

It is also quite possible that, for example, the vendor was assisting the contractor at the time and there would be a dispute between them if they were to argue the point.