Small Claims Case (Scotland) - House sellers removed EV charger from property

sheramber

FreeBear said:

Section62 said:

ProDave said:

Another way to tackle this is try and find the new address of the vendor, and the company that provided the grant to pay for the charger.  Then let that company know the vendor has nicked their charger and let them chase the vendor for a refund of the grant money paid.

Is that what the grant funder's contract said - that if the applicant moves they have to leave the charger with the property?  Have you seen the contract?

I'm having a EV charging point installed and funded by the Motability scheme. Once fitted, it is mine to do with as I see fit. So I can take it with me if/when I move, or I can leave it behind. Should I leave the charging point behind, I will need to fund the installation of a new one at the next property (at a cost of around £1K). The alternative is to pay an electrician to remove the old one at an unspecified cost, and find another ~£500 for him to wire it up at the new house. The secondhand value of an EV charging point is minimal, and the likes of Motability are probably getting the things at a discounted price.

Note - I say "mine" and "I", but it is the property of the person getting the Motability car.

But that is Motability's contract.

Other schemes will have their own contracts.

The OP needs to establish what the 'some scheme' is and what it says.

FreeBear

sheramber said:

FreeBear said:

Section62 said:

ProDave said:

Another way to tackle this is try and find the new address of the vendor, and the company that provided the grant to pay for the charger.  Then let that company know the vendor has nicked their charger and let them chase the vendor for a refund of the grant money paid.

Is that what the grant funder's contract said - that if the applicant moves they have to leave the charger with the property?  Have you seen the contract?

I'm having a EV charging point installed and funded by the Motability scheme. Once fitted, it is mine to do with as I see fit. So I can take it with me if/when I move, or I can leave it behind. Should I leave the charging point behind, I will need to fund the installation of a new one at the next property (at a cost of around £1K). The alternative is to pay an electrician to remove the old one at an unspecified cost, and find another ~£500 for him to wire it up at the new house. The secondhand value of an EV charging point is minimal, and the likes of Motability are probably getting the things at a discounted price.

Note - I say "mine" and "I", but it is the property of the person getting the Motability car.

But that is Motability's contract.

Other schemes will have their own contracts.

The OP needs to establish what the 'some scheme' is and what it says.

I agree completely. But it is unlikely that the vendor will volunteer the information, and anyone posting on this thread (myself included) will only be guessing.

If we assume for a moment that the vendor had to take the charging point with them, and the OP really wants one, then (hopefully) the wiring will be in place, so the cost of installing a new one shouldn't be too high. A secondhand or refurbished unit from ebay for ~£200, plus another ~£200 for an electrician to wire it in...

user1977

sheramber said:

FreeBear said:

Section62 said:

ProDave said:

Another way to tackle this is try and find the new address of the vendor, and the company that provided the grant to pay for the charger.  Then let that company know the vendor has nicked their charger and let them chase the vendor for a refund of the grant money paid.

Is that what the grant funder's contract said - that if the applicant moves they have to leave the charger with the property?  Have you seen the contract?

I'm having a EV charging point installed and funded by the Motability scheme. Once fitted, it is mine to do with as I see fit. So I can take it with me if/when I move, or I can leave it behind. Should I leave the charging point behind, I will need to fund the installation of a new one at the next property (at a cost of around £1K). The alternative is to pay an electrician to remove the old one at an unspecified cost, and find another ~£500 for him to wire it up at the new house. The secondhand value of an EV charging point is minimal, and the likes of Motability are probably getting the things at a discounted price.

Note - I say "mine" and "I", but it is the property of the person getting the Motability car.

The OP needs to establish what the 'some scheme' is and what it says.

They have no need to do this.

Section62

user1977 said:

sheramber said:

FreeBear said:

Section62 said:

ProDave said:

Another way to tackle this is try and find the new address of the vendor, and the company that provided the grant to pay for the charger.  Then let that company know the vendor has nicked their charger and let them chase the vendor for a refund of the grant money paid.

Is that what the grant funder's contract said - that if the applicant moves they have to leave the charger with the property?  Have you seen the contract?

I'm having a EV charging point installed and funded by the Motability scheme. Once fitted, it is mine to do with as I see fit. So I can take it with me if/when I move, or I can leave it behind. Should I leave the charging point behind, I will need to fund the installation of a new one at the next property (at a cost of around £1K). The alternative is to pay an electrician to remove the old one at an unspecified cost, and find another ~£500 for him to wire it up at the new house. The secondhand value of an EV charging point is minimal, and the likes of Motability are probably getting the things at a discounted price.

Note - I say "mine" and "I", but it is the property of the person getting the Motability car.

The OP needs to establish what the 'some scheme' is and what it says.

They have no need to do this.

Agreed.  But I suggest it would be a wise thing to do before they took the advice which involved making possibly defamatory comments about the vendor to third parties (i.e. the grant organisation).

From what you and others have suggested it seems to be a fairly simple matter between the OP and the vendor.  Dragging other parties into the mix doesn't have an obvious benefit to the OP.

penners324

Section62 said:

user1977 said:

sheramber said:

FreeBear said:

Section62 said:

ProDave said:

Another way to tackle this is try and find the new address of the vendor, and the company that provided the grant to pay for the charger.  Then let that company know the vendor has nicked their charger and let them chase the vendor for a refund of the grant money paid.

Is that what the grant funder's contract said - that if the applicant moves they have to leave the charger with the property?  Have you seen the contract?

I'm having a EV charging point installed and funded by the Motability scheme. Once fitted, it is mine to do with as I see fit. So I can take it with me if/when I move, or I can leave it behind. Should I leave the charging point behind, I will need to fund the installation of a new one at the next property (at a cost of around £1K). The alternative is to pay an electrician to remove the old one at an unspecified cost, and find another ~£500 for him to wire it up at the new house. The secondhand value of an EV charging point is minimal, and the likes of Motability are probably getting the things at a discounted price.

Note - I say "mine" and "I", but it is the property of the person getting the Motability car.

The OP needs to establish what the 'some scheme' is and what it says.

They have no need to do this.

Agreed.  But I suggest it would be a wise thing to do before they took the advice which involved making possibly defamatory comments about the vendor to third parties (i.e. the grant organisation).

From what you and others have suggested it seems to be a fairly simple matter between the OP and the vendor.  Dragging other parties into the mix doesn't have an obvious benefit to the OP.

Or their employer 

CakeOrDeath

Trying to pull all the comments together my thinking is along the lines of the following:

For clarity, the current process in Scotland for property transaction (as I understand it and how it was described to me by my solicitor) is that on viewing the property all fittings and fixtures listed in Scottish Standard Clauses are deemed part of the property. I believe this is to make the transaction a bit simpler, so there is no list of items included with the house sale. I think it is also done this way to avoid disputes when fittings/fixtures are removed and damage is caused when doing so. Instead, at the point where the missives are discussed the seller can determine items that are excluded from the house sale. This is where the seller should have said we are taking the car charger. As a buyer I can't stop them from saying they're taking it but I can say "I really wanted that charger, so maybe take £X amount off the price if I can't have it." This is where there is some negotiation because the buyer may have bid a bit more based on what was seen at the viewings of the property. By not excluding things from the missives and just taking the items is dishonest, and a breach of the contract that is signed.

My thinking now is that who truly owns the charger is irrelevant because of the paragraph above. If they had to take the charger because of whatever reason, that's fine, but they should have formally mentioned this. Having the charger was definitely a plus for me so it did have an influence on me buying the property. I still think the main issue is working out appropriate compensation, but hopefully I'll have a better idea of that after getting some quotes and re-evaluating my fudge factor (still thinking £400-£800 range is appropriate for charger and installation). 

I have tried to look into what scheme it could have been and due to data protection the companies involved wouldn't be able to tell me any details, which is fair enough.

I agree that it is highly unlikely that the charger would be refitted, but I'll still offer this option in my letter before action.

35har1old

penners324 said:

If the charger wasn't owned to the property seller how can it be considered a fixture & fitting?

Same principle with solar panels?

Seller can only agree to leave items owned by them

35har1old

sheramber said:

FreeBear said:

Section62 said:

ProDave said:

Another way to tackle this is try and find the new address of the vendor, and the company that provided the grant to pay for the charger.  Then let that company know the vendor has nicked their charger and let them chase the vendor for a refund of the grant money paid.

Is that what the grant funder's contract said - that if the applicant moves they have to leave the charger with the property?  Have you seen the contract?

I'm having a EV charging point installed and funded by the Motability scheme. Once fitted, it is mine to do with as I see fit. So I can take it with me if/when I move, or I can leave it behind. Should I leave the charging point behind, I will need to fund the installation of a new one at the next property (at a cost of around £1K). The alternative is to pay an electrician to remove the old one at an unspecified cost, and find another ~£500 for him to wire it up at the new house. The secondhand value of an EV charging point is minimal, and the likes of Motability are probably getting the things at a discounted price.

Note - I say "mine" and "I", but it is the property of the person getting the Motability car.

But that is Motability's contract.

Other schemes will have their own contracts.

The OP needs to establish what the 'some scheme' is and what it says.

Scottish law would not allow removal if you claim that you now own the charger 

35har1old

CakeOrDeath said:

Trying to pull all the comments together my thinking is along the lines of the following:

For clarity, the current process in Scotland for property transaction (as I understand it and how it was described to me by my solicitor) is that on viewing the property all fittings and fixtures listed in Scottish Standard Clauses are deemed part of the property. I believe this is to make the transaction a bit simpler, so there is no list of items included with the house sale. I think it is also done this way to avoid disputes when fittings/fixtures are removed and damage is caused when doing so. Instead, at the point where the missives are discussed the seller can determine items that are excluded from the house sale. This is where the seller should have said we are taking the car charger. As a buyer I can't stop them from saying they're taking it but I can say "I really wanted that charger, so maybe take £X amount off the price if I can't have it." This is where there is some negotiation because the buyer may have bid a bit more based on what was seen at the viewings of the property. By not excluding things from the missives and just taking the items is dishonest, and a breach of the contract that is signed.

My thinking now is that who truly owns the charger is irrelevant because of the paragraph above. If they had to take the charger because of whatever reason, that's fine, but they should have formally mentioned this. Having the charger was definitely a plus for me so it did have an influence on me buying the property. I still think the main issue is working out appropriate compensation, but hopefully I'll have a better idea of that after getting some quotes and re-evaluating my fudge factor (still thinking £400-£800 range is appropriate for charger and installation). 

I have tried to look into what scheme it could have been and due to data protection the companies involved wouldn't be able to tell me any details, which is fair enough.

I agree that it is highly unlikely that the charger would be refitted, but I'll still offer this option in my letter before action.

Seller can only agree if he owns the item
Fee for starting claim £110
Limit of £150 on expenses 

user1977

35har1old said:

CakeOrDeath said:

Trying to pull all the comments together my thinking is along the lines of the following:

For clarity, the current process in Scotland for property transaction (as I understand it and how it was described to me by my solicitor) is that on viewing the property all fittings and fixtures listed in Scottish Standard Clauses are deemed part of the property. I believe this is to make the transaction a bit simpler, so there is no list of items included with the house sale. I think it is also done this way to avoid disputes when fittings/fixtures are removed and damage is caused when doing so. Instead, at the point where the missives are discussed the seller can determine items that are excluded from the house sale. This is where the seller should have said we are taking the car charger. As a buyer I can't stop them from saying they're taking it but I can say "I really wanted that charger, so maybe take £X amount off the price if I can't have it." This is where there is some negotiation because the buyer may have bid a bit more based on what was seen at the viewings of the property. By not excluding things from the missives and just taking the items is dishonest, and a breach of the contract that is signed.

My thinking now is that who truly owns the charger is irrelevant because of the paragraph above. If they had to take the charger because of whatever reason, that's fine, but they should have formally mentioned this. Having the charger was definitely a plus for me so it did have an influence on me buying the property. I still think the main issue is working out appropriate compensation, but hopefully I'll have a better idea of that after getting some quotes and re-evaluating my fudge factor (still thinking £400-£800 range is appropriate for charger and installation). 

I have tried to look into what scheme it could have been and due to data protection the companies involved wouldn't be able to tell me any details, which is fair enough.

I agree that it is highly unlikely that the charger would be refitted, but I'll still offer this option in my letter before action.

Seller can only agree if he owns the item

The seller has contracted with the OP that the items in question are included in the sale. It might be the case that the seller couldn't lawfully have given the OP title to those items, but it still means the seller is in breach of contract - the OP's claim is the same.