Sold house, can I be sued for damage caused by incorrect installation by plumber.

loubel

Even if the plumber wasn't meant to connect to the soil stack, the buyer has to rely on their own inspections, reports  and surveys as to the condition of the property. Either they failed to do so or these did not pick up the problem. Neither makes you responsible for spotting and warning them if the issue.

mark_cycling00

What do you mean by "you've been informed"?

Have they sent you a threatening letter?

They didn't pay for a survey, they probably don't have proper house insurance either so they might see you as the only route to getting money.

Obviously they can attempt to sue (if they have any money) but I really doubt they could get anywhere at all. They might even have been advised of this already and now they're trying it on with you.

Let's say they did arrange a survey, you glued a plastic pipe to the wall and told the surveyor that it was the overflow pipe, honest guv and you wouldn't let the surveyor look in the loft.
Now maybe there is a case, but it's still an expensive, risky thing to do.

In this scenario, when their solicitor is charging by the hour and needs to read some evidence from you, you submit huge, protracted and rather vague documents that the solicitor will need to invoice thousands of pounds for reading time. 
Contradictory diagrams help too. 
They'll soon give up. 

pinkshoes

BillyfromS said:

Thanks for the replies, googling misrepresentation seems to imply that despite all this, you can still be sued.  Understandably it's causing mĺe sleepless nights.

Have you actually been sued yet?

Received anything in writing from them or their solicitor?

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. I could sue Mr Pinkshoes for taking too long in the bathroom during peak times if I wanted...

Your response is along the following lines should you receive anything official that needs replying to:

"The water tank was fitted in about 1998 where it was moved to the loft. In 2020 the tank overflowed. This was because after 22 years the ballc*ck had jammed. The ballc*ck was replaced and I had no subsequent issues with the tank."

arthurdick

Hi BillyfromS,  are you familiar with 

The Reply Given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971) ? . That springs to my mind if they decided to sue.

koalakoala

I actually feel sorry for the buyers !

ThisIsWeird

koalakoala said:

I actually feel sorry for the buyers !

Yes, especially as good chance that even a survey wouldn't have revealed the full extent of what was going on. Surely the most that would have been determined was that the overflow setup didn't meet current regs, that's all.

But, hey, that's what insurance is for.

Gavin83

I agree with the others, they have no case.

Theres also no way the overflow caused this. The only reason you’d typically feed it outside is so you’ve got an easy way to spot if it’s overflowing. The soil stack is designed to carry water (and other stuff!) from the toilet, from showers, baths, etc. An overflow is nothing for a soil stack.

They’ve clearly encountered a serious issue, decided it’s easier to blame you than go through their insurance and found something to pin the blame. They’re still wrong but that’s likely their logic.

NameUnavailable

koalakoala said:

I actually feel sorry for the buyers !

Of course, never nice for anyone to find unexpected problems but they didn't bother to get a survery (so who knows what other issues there may be that they aren't already aware of) and regardless, it's their problem so they shouldn't be trying to threaten the previous owners.

_Penny_Dreadful

@BillyfromS does the S stand for Scotland? Did you just sell a property in Scotland and if so when was the date of entry? 

user1977

_Penny_Dreadful said:

@BillyfromS does the S stand for Scotland? Did you just sell a property in Scotland and if so when was the date of entry? 

If it was Scotland then there’d be a Home Report, so the buyer would have a survey.