House sale but now threatened with legal action.

TheJP

Everyone knows these type of people are full of empty threats, i will be forced to take legal action, i will talk to my lawyer etc. We've all had one.

I would tell your MIL to respond the next time they come round, 'I have sought legal advice and must ask you to no longer harass me about the sale. If you wish to discuss this then please have your solicitor contact my solicitor (your solicitor will have their details on file) that carried out the conveyancing process. Any further direct communication from you either in person or via a non legal letter will be classed as further harassment.'

Section62

TheJP said:

Everyone knows these type of people are full of empty threats, i will be forced to take legal action, i will talk to my lawyer etc. We've all had one.

I would tell your MIL to respond the next time they come round, 'I have sought legal advice and must ask you to no longer harass me about the sale. If you wish to discuss this then please have your solicitor contact my solicitor (your solicitor will have their details on file) that carried out the conveyancing process. Any further direct communication from you either in person or via a non legal letter will be classed as further harassment.'

OP's MIL needs to decide whether she's willing to pay for a solicitor to deal with this - the one who dealt with the house sale that long ago is unlikely to be enthusiastic about doing much work on the case without being paid more money.

The "your solicitor and mine" line only works if you have a solicitor. You also cannot make the other party engage a solicitor if they want to DIY things as a LIP.

I'd also suggest caution in doing the 'no contact' or 'ignore' line suggested by some, as if this did end up going to court then conduct - such as being willing to discuss the matter - may be a factor in the outcome and any award of costs.  Furthermore, nothing ought to be done either way until it is established exactly what was put on the TA6.

If the MIL does decide to make a statement along the lines of the BiB then it would be a good idea to have the words printed out on a piece of paper which can be read, and the paper then offered to the buyer.

TheJP

Section62 said:

TheJP said:

Everyone knows these type of people are full of empty threats, i will be forced to take legal action, i will talk to my lawyer etc. We've all had one.

I would tell your MIL to respond the next time they come round, 'I have sought legal advice and must ask you to no longer harass me about the sale. If you wish to discuss this then please have your solicitor contact my solicitor (your solicitor will have their details on file) that carried out the conveyancing process. Any further direct communication from you either in person or via a non legal letter will be classed as further harassment.'

OP's MIL needs to decide whether she's willing to pay for a solicitor to deal with this - the one who dealt with the house sale that long ago is unlikely to be enthusiastic about doing much work on the case without being paid more money.

The "your solicitor and mine" line only works if you have a solicitor. You also cannot make the other party engage a solicitor if they want to DIY things as a LIP.

I'd also suggest caution in doing the 'no contact' or 'ignore' line suggested by some, as if this did end up going to court then conduct - such as being willing to discuss the matter - may be a factor in the outcome and any award of costs.  Furthermore, nothing ought to be done either way until it is established exactly what was put on the TA6.

If the MIL does decide to make a statement along the lines of the BiB then it would be a good idea to have the words printed out on a piece of paper which can be read, and the paper then offered to the buyer.

I think you have missed my point, what i am saying is the new owner is using the threat of legal action if the OP doesn't presumerally compensate them because the garden has flooded. They don't have a solicitor! My message in bold is a reply to the new owner if they come round again, the OP doesn't have to do anything as they are stating to the new owner that if they wish then they need to have a solicitor contact the previous solicitor that handled the sale. They don't need to make contact with their previous solicitor as we all know the new owner will not do anything. 

Section62

TheJP said:

Section62 said:

TheJP said:

Everyone knows these type of people are full of empty threats, i will be forced to take legal action, i will talk to my lawyer etc. We've all had one.

I would tell your MIL to respond the next time they come round, 'I have sought legal advice and must ask you to no longer harass me about the sale. If you wish to discuss this then please have your solicitor contact my solicitor (your solicitor will have their details on file) that carried out the conveyancing process. Any further direct communication from you either in person or via a non legal letter will be classed as further harassment.'

OP's MIL needs to decide whether she's willing to pay for a solicitor to deal with this - the one who dealt with the house sale that long ago is unlikely to be enthusiastic about doing much work on the case without being paid more money.

The "your solicitor and mine" line only works if you have a solicitor. You also cannot make the other party engage a solicitor if they want to DIY things as a LIP.

I'd also suggest caution in doing the 'no contact' or 'ignore' line suggested by some, as if this did end up going to court then conduct - such as being willing to discuss the matter - may be a factor in the outcome and any award of costs.  Furthermore, nothing ought to be done either way until it is established exactly what was put on the TA6.

If the MIL does decide to make a statement along the lines of the BiB then it would be a good idea to have the words printed out on a piece of paper which can be read, and the paper then offered to the buyer.

I think you have missed my point, what i am saying is the new owner is using the threat of legal action if the OP doesn't presumerally compensate them because the garden has flooded. They don't have a solicitor! My message in bold is a reply to the new owner if they come round again, the OP doesn't have to do anything as they are stating to the new owner that if they wish then they need to have a solicitor contact the previous solicitor that handled the sale. They don't need to make contact with their previous solicitor as we all know the new owner will not do anything. 

Do we?  I think the new owner not doing anything is more of a hope than a certainty.  If they are coming round in person every day then it is reasonable to say they are fairly well wound up about the issue, and what they might or might not do is uncertain.

Inviting them to contact the MIL's solicitor is a bluff that might be called.  The OP & MIL need to consider whether that is something they really want.

You say "They don't have a solicitor!", but you don't know that.

I got your point, and agree with some of it.  But my point is there is a risk for the OP in adopting a strategy suggested by friendly internet folk who are basing their approach on not very much information and a whole load of assumptions.

Whereas the bit that really matters - and what the OP should focus on first - is exactly what the TA6 says.

TheJP

Section62 said:

TheJP said:

Section62 said:

TheJP said:

Everyone knows these type of people are full of empty threats, i will be forced to take legal action, i will talk to my lawyer etc. We've all had one.

I would tell your MIL to respond the next time they come round, 'I have sought legal advice and must ask you to no longer harass me about the sale. If you wish to discuss this then please have your solicitor contact my solicitor (your solicitor will have their details on file) that carried out the conveyancing process. Any further direct communication from you either in person or via a non legal letter will be classed as further harassment.'

OP's MIL needs to decide whether she's willing to pay for a solicitor to deal with this - the one who dealt with the house sale that long ago is unlikely to be enthusiastic about doing much work on the case without being paid more money.

The "your solicitor and mine" line only works if you have a solicitor. You also cannot make the other party engage a solicitor if they want to DIY things as a LIP.

I'd also suggest caution in doing the 'no contact' or 'ignore' line suggested by some, as if this did end up going to court then conduct - such as being willing to discuss the matter - may be a factor in the outcome and any award of costs.  Furthermore, nothing ought to be done either way until it is established exactly what was put on the TA6.

If the MIL does decide to make a statement along the lines of the BiB then it would be a good idea to have the words printed out on a piece of paper which can be read, and the paper then offered to the buyer.

I think you have missed my point, what i am saying is the new owner is using the threat of legal action if the OP doesn't presumerally compensate them because the garden has flooded. They don't have a solicitor! My message in bold is a reply to the new owner if they come round again, the OP doesn't have to do anything as they are stating to the new owner that if they wish then they need to have a solicitor contact the previous solicitor that handled the sale. They don't need to make contact with their previous solicitor as we all know the new owner will not do anything. 

Do we?  I think the new owner not doing anything is more of a hope than a certainty.  If they are coming round in person every day then it is reasonable to say they are fairly well wound up about the issue, and what they might or might not do is uncertain.

Inviting them to contact the MIL's solicitor is a bluff that might be called.  The OP & MIL need to consider whether that is something they really want.

You say "They don't have a solicitor!", but you don't know that.

I got your point, and agree with some of it.  But my point is there is a risk for the OP in adopting a strategy suggested by friendly internet folk who are basing their approach on not very much information and a whole load of assumptions.

Whereas the bit that really matters - and what the OP should focus on first - is exactly what the TA6 says.

If they were going to do something then IMO they would have especially if they have paid to retain a solicitor, this looks like a pressure tactic in the hope that the MIL will fork out for repair to the garden or compensation of some kind.

I agree with the point about clarification on the TA6 form, my point is about at least stopping the harassment as i don't feel the new owner is serious with their threat of legal action.

Section62

TheJP said:

Section62 said:

If they were going to do something then IMO they would have especially if they have paid to retain a solicitor, this looks like a pressure tactic in the hope that the MIL will fork out for repair to the garden or compensation of some kind.

I agree with the point about clarification on the TA6 form, my point is about at least stopping the harassment as i don't feel the new owner is serious with their threat of legal action.

I agree about stopping the harassment, but don't think talking about solicitors is a good way of doing it.  If the buyer really doesn't have a solicitor lined up already then it probably isn't the wisest move to put the idea in their head.

It may be better to write a letter asking the buyer not to come to the MIL's home again, and that any further correspondence regarding the property should be in writing and sent in the post.  Noting that these visits have been distressing and unproductive and that any continuation will result in the MIL contacting the Police for advice.  The letter can be handed to the buyer (if they come round again) with the MIL simply saying her response is in the envelope and she doesn't wish to discuss in further on her doorstep. Then close the door (not too firmly).

By giving the buyer the option to write to her the MIL will avoid the need to involve a solicitor, and any letters sent can be kept and used in case this becomes more 'legal'.  If the letters are harassing in nature (e.g. content/frequency) then the MIL will have evidence of this.

I agree with user1977's post some way back - getting solicitors involved probably isn't worth it unless there is a real prospect of a court claim.  Inviting the buyer to get her solicitor to write to the MIL's solicitor takes the situation down a path it doesn't need to go in.

For peace of mind clarify what was said on the TA6.  Deal with the harassment.  Wait and see what the buyer's next move is (if any).

Section62

penners324 said:

Perhaps you should go and knock on this neighbours door to 'politely' ask them to stop harassing your MiL

Not a good idea.  They may then make counter claims of harassment or inappropriate behaviour by the OP.  There's also the risk of the situation getting out of control.  As it stands the unwanted behaviour is all one way, there's no benefit from discarding that clarity.

Communication in writing is safer.

eddddy

FWIW, I guess it may the answer to this question on the TA6 that the new owner feels aggrieved about:





Did your MiL tick "No" or write "Don't Know" or leave it blank?

But the TA6 also says:




And it sounds like your MiL might have only briefly owned the house, and no flooding occurred during her ownership period...

The_Original_Red1 said:

So basically my mother in law inherited a house in a will...

But you also say your MiL only lives five houses away, so might have known about previous flooding anyway...

The_Original_Red1 said:

...the property she inherited is only five houses away from her own 

Plus there might be a bunch of other things said in answers to pre-contract enquiries, which might be relevant.

(TBH, I've never been involved in this type of litigation, so I've no idea what the outcome might be if it went to court.)

Albermarle

SootySweep1 said:

Hi
What does the buyer actually want your MiL to do ?

At certain times of the year in some areas alot of people have flooded / waterlogged gardens but that's not the same as a flooded house.

As you can see from the previous post, flooding in a garden is still classed as flooding, although obviously not as serious.
Very recently I was looking into insurance for a house that is actually in a flood zone. Of course one of the questions was has the house actually flooded? and it was made clear that the question related also to the grounds of the property, and not just the property itself.
So whilst some pooling at the bottom of the garden is probably not flooding, but having the whole garden underwater ( even if only by a centimetre) is normally classed as flooding as far as I can see. Probably a grey area between the two. 

Section62

Albermarle said:

SootySweep1 said:

Hi
What does the buyer actually want your MiL to do ?

At certain times of the year in some areas alot of people have flooded / waterlogged gardens but that's not the same as a flooded house.

As you can see from the previous post, flooding in a garden is still classed as flooding, although obviously not as serious.
Very recently I was looking into insurance for a house that is actually in a flood zone. Of course one of the questions was has the house actually flooded? and it was made clear that the question related also to the grounds of the property, and not just the property itself.
So whilst some pooling at the bottom of the garden is probably not flooding, but having the whole garden underwater ( even if only by a centimetre) is normally classed as flooding as far as I can see. Probably a grey area between the two. 

I have a feeling there was a case a while back where someone had a successful claim because the garden 'flooded' - which was nothing more than surface water being a bit slow to percolate into the ground when it rained, due to the clay soil below?  IIRC it was the kind of thing which could be fixed by aerating the lawn, but was still considered to be 'flooding'.