Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Undisclosed faulty boiler when buying a property
2,069 views
Skip to first unread message
Big Les Wade
Jan 28, 2014, 11:28:50 AM1/28/14
to
A friend of mine recently bought a flat. It turned out when she moved in
that the boiler did not work. It wasn't that it was dodgy or poorly
maintained or inefficient - it simply didn't work at all. She had to
replace it, for several thousand pounds.
In the meantime she checked the property information form completed by
the seller. It was a standard Form TA6. In answer to the question
"12.2(c) Is the heating system in good working order?" the seller had
answered "Yes".
My friend duly contacted the seller and asked her to pay for the
replacement boiler. The seller refused, though she did offer to pay a
small amount towards the cost. My friend declined these offers and sued
in the small claims court.
She lost. The judge said that, for her claim to be valid, she had to
prove that a term stating that the boiler was in good working order was
present in the contract. There was, the judge said, no evidence for
this. Statements made to give information are, said the judge, not
warranties, and there was no evidence that it was the parties' express
intention for this to be a term of the contract.
In other words, the statements made by the seller on the Property
Information Form do not form part of the contract of sale.
This came as a surprise to my friend, and to me. I can't help feeling it
would be a surprise to the Law Society too. Does it come as a surprise
to ULM members?
[I may mention that my friend had had a survey done, but the surveyor
had not been able to test the boiler because it had a prepay system
where you charge up an electronic card with cash and stick it in the
meter (it was a let flat). There was no card (the tenant had left) and
no way of making the boiler work. Not that I think this is relevant; one
might think that the normal caveat emptor rule would be overridden where
the seller has made an explicit statement that something is in working
order.]
--
Les
that the boiler did not work. It wasn't that it was dodgy or poorly
maintained or inefficient - it simply didn't work at all. She had to
replace it, for several thousand pounds.
In the meantime she checked the property information form completed by
the seller. It was a standard Form TA6. In answer to the question
"12.2(c) Is the heating system in good working order?" the seller had
answered "Yes".
My friend duly contacted the seller and asked her to pay for the
replacement boiler. The seller refused, though she did offer to pay a
small amount towards the cost. My friend declined these offers and sued
in the small claims court.
She lost. The judge said that, for her claim to be valid, she had to
prove that a term stating that the boiler was in good working order was
present in the contract. There was, the judge said, no evidence for
this. Statements made to give information are, said the judge, not
warranties, and there was no evidence that it was the parties' express
intention for this to be a term of the contract.
In other words, the statements made by the seller on the Property
Information Form do not form part of the contract of sale.
This came as a surprise to my friend, and to me. I can't help feeling it
would be a surprise to the Law Society too. Does it come as a surprise
to ULM members?
[I may mention that my friend had had a survey done, but the surveyor
had not been able to test the boiler because it had a prepay system
where you charge up an electronic card with cash and stick it in the
meter (it was a let flat). There was no card (the tenant had left) and
no way of making the boiler work. Not that I think this is relevant; one
might think that the normal caveat emptor rule would be overridden where
the seller has made an explicit statement that something is in working
order.]
--
Les
Roland Perry
Jan 28, 2014, 12:02:34 PM1/28/14
to
In message <kQr9qnKS...@invalid.com>, at 16:28:50 on Tue, 28 Jan
2014, Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com> remarked:
what's underneath. The limitations of their surveys would normally be
disclosed in a tranche of disclaimers.
--
Roland Perry
2014, Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com> remarked:
>I may mention that my friend had had a survey done, but the surveyor
>had not been able to test the boiler because it had a prepay system
>where you charge up an electronic card with cash and stick it in the
>meter (it was a let flat). There was no card (the tenant had left) and
>no way of making the boiler work.
Surveyors are generally very reluctant to even lift carpets to see
>had not been able to test the boiler because it had a prepay system
>where you charge up an electronic card with cash and stick it in the
>meter (it was a let flat). There was no card (the tenant had left) and
>no way of making the boiler work.
what's underneath. The limitations of their surveys would normally be
disclosed in a tranche of disclaimers.
--
Roland Perry
TTman
Jan 28, 2014, 12:21:09 PM1/28/14
to
SNIP
one of those forms and being truthful then ?
>
> She lost. The judge said that, for her claim to be valid, she had to
> prove that a term stating that the boiler was in good working order was
> present in the contract. There was, the judge said, no evidence for
> this. Statements made to give information are, said the judge, not
> warranties, and there was no evidence that it was the parties' express
> intention for this to be a term of the contract.
>
> In other words, the statements made by the seller on the Property
> Information Form do not form part of the contract of sale.
>
> This came as a surprise to my friend, and to me. I can't help feeling it
> would be a surprise to the Law Society too. Does it come as a surprise
> to ULM members?
>
> [I may mention that my friend had had a survey done, but the surveyor
> had not been able to test the boiler because it had a prepay system
> where you charge up an electronic card with cash and stick it in the
> meter (it was a let flat). There was no card (the tenant had left) and
> no way of making the boiler work. Not that I think this is relevant; one
> might think that the normal caveat emptor rule would be overridden where
> the seller has made an explicit statement that something is in working
> order.]
>
I can hardly believe that decision.... What's the point of even having
> She lost. The judge said that, for her claim to be valid, she had to
> prove that a term stating that the boiler was in good working order was
> present in the contract. There was, the judge said, no evidence for
> this. Statements made to give information are, said the judge, not
> warranties, and there was no evidence that it was the parties' express
> intention for this to be a term of the contract.
>
> In other words, the statements made by the seller on the Property
> Information Form do not form part of the contract of sale.
>
> This came as a surprise to my friend, and to me. I can't help feeling it
> would be a surprise to the Law Society too. Does it come as a surprise
> to ULM members?
>
> [I may mention that my friend had had a survey done, but the surveyor
> had not been able to test the boiler because it had a prepay system
> where you charge up an electronic card with cash and stick it in the
> meter (it was a let flat). There was no card (the tenant had left) and
> no way of making the boiler work. Not that I think this is relevant; one
> might think that the normal caveat emptor rule would be overridden where
> the seller has made an explicit statement that something is in working
> order.]
>
one of those forms and being truthful then ?
Tim Watts
Jan 28, 2014, 12:26:11 PM1/28/14
to
On Tuesday 28 January 2014 17:02 Roland Perry wrote in
uk.legal.moderated:
+1
IME, you are much better being clued up and looking everywhere yourself.
Not to say you should not get a survey - but if you look in the loft, at
the electrical consumer unit and lift a manhole cover or two, it can be
very revealing and your average surveyor will seldom do any of this.
Case in point - poked my head in the loft of somewhere I was looking to
buy: lead sheathed lighting wiring - that tells me some of the wiring is
> about 50 years old so expect to replace pronto.
Loo paper half way up a manhole chamber suggests poor drainage or slight
blockages - enough to commision a CCTV survey.
There are lots of things to look for that only need ordinary observation
and some common sense.
--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/
http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal
coverage
uk.legal.moderated:
IME, you are much better being clued up and looking everywhere yourself.
Not to say you should not get a survey - but if you look in the loft, at
the electrical consumer unit and lift a manhole cover or two, it can be
very revealing and your average surveyor will seldom do any of this.
Case in point - poked my head in the loft of somewhere I was looking to
buy: lead sheathed lighting wiring - that tells me some of the wiring is
> about 50 years old so expect to replace pronto.
Loo paper half way up a manhole chamber suggests poor drainage or slight
blockages - enough to commision a CCTV survey.
There are lots of things to look for that only need ordinary observation
and some common sense.
--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/
http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal
coverage
Tim Watts
Jan 28, 2014, 12:26:26 PM1/28/14
to
On Tuesday 28 January 2014 16:28 Big Les Wade wrote in
uk.legal.moderated:
> A friend of mine recently bought a flat. It turned out when she moved
> in that the boiler did not work. It wasn't that it was dodgy or poorly
> maintained or inefficient - it simply didn't work at all. She had to
> replace it, for several thousand pounds.
>
> In the meantime she checked the property information form completed by
> the seller. It was a standard Form TA6. In answer to the question
> "12.2(c) Is the heating system in good working order?" the seller had
> answered "Yes".
>
> My friend duly contacted the seller and asked her to pay for the
> replacement boiler. The seller refused, though she did offer to pay a
> small amount towards the cost. My friend declined these offers and
> sued in the small claims court.
>
> She lost. The judge said that, for her claim to be valid, she had to
> prove that a term stating that the boiler was in good working order
> was present in the contract. There was, the judge said, no evidence
> for this. Statements made to give information are, said the judge, not
> warranties, and there was no evidence that it was the parties' express
> intention for this to be a term of the contract.
>
> In other words, the statements made by the seller on the Property
> Information Form do not form part of the contract of sale.
>
> This came as a surprise to my friend, and to me. I can't help feeling
> it would be a surprise to the Law Society too. Does it come as a
> surprise to ULM members?
This seems to set a precedent that lying on a TA6 is unlikley to be
remedied.
uk.legal.moderated:
> A friend of mine recently bought a flat. It turned out when she moved
> in that the boiler did not work. It wasn't that it was dodgy or poorly
> maintained or inefficient - it simply didn't work at all. She had to
> replace it, for several thousand pounds.
>
> In the meantime she checked the property information form completed by
> the seller. It was a standard Form TA6. In answer to the question
> "12.2(c) Is the heating system in good working order?" the seller had
> answered "Yes".
>
> My friend duly contacted the seller and asked her to pay for the
> replacement boiler. The seller refused, though she did offer to pay a
> small amount towards the cost. My friend declined these offers and
> sued in the small claims court.
>
> She lost. The judge said that, for her claim to be valid, she had to
> prove that a term stating that the boiler was in good working order
> was present in the contract. There was, the judge said, no evidence
> for this. Statements made to give information are, said the judge, not
> warranties, and there was no evidence that it was the parties' express
> intention for this to be a term of the contract.
>
> In other words, the statements made by the seller on the Property
> Information Form do not form part of the contract of sale.
>
> This came as a surprise to my friend, and to me. I can't help feeling
> it would be a surprise to the Law Society too. Does it come as a
> surprise to ULM members?
remedied.
Paul Rudin
Jan 28, 2014, 12:38:29 PM1/28/14
to
Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com> writes:
> In other words, the statements made by the seller on the Property
> Information Form do not form part of the contract of sale.
The belt and braces approach would be to sue in misrepresentation as
> In other words, the statements made by the seller on the Property
> Information Form do not form part of the contract of sale.
well as for breach of contract. If the statements made are not
contractual terms they might still be false statements of fact intended
to induce the contract...
Presumably there is precedent that covers this situation?
Roland Perry
Jan 28, 2014, 1:09:01 PM1/28/14
to
In message <ts4lra-...@squidward.local.dionic.net>, at 17:26:11 on
Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Tim Watts <tw+u...@dionic.net> remarked:
knowledge. Having bought about a dozen pre-owned houses in my life, and
also read the reports of surveyors for a few, I feel I'm most of the way
there; but the average member of the public just doesn't have the
skills.
--
Roland Perry
Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Tim Watts <tw+u...@dionic.net> remarked:
>> Surveyors are generally very reluctant to even lift carpets to see
>> what's underneath. The limitations of their surveys would normally be
>> disclosed in a tranche of disclaimers.
>
>+1
>
>IME, you are much better being clued up and looking everywhere yourself.
>
>Not to say you should not get a survey - but if you look in the loft, at
>the electrical consumer unit and lift a manhole cover or two, it can be
>very revealing and your average surveyor will seldom do any of this.
>
>Case in point - poked my head in the loft of somewhere I was looking to
buy: lead sheathed lighting wiring - that tells me some of the wiring
>is about 50 years old so expect to replace pronto.
All of this implies a certain degree of experience and acquired
>> what's underneath. The limitations of their surveys would normally be
>> disclosed in a tranche of disclaimers.
>
>+1
>
>IME, you are much better being clued up and looking everywhere yourself.
>
>Not to say you should not get a survey - but if you look in the loft, at
>the electrical consumer unit and lift a manhole cover or two, it can be
>very revealing and your average surveyor will seldom do any of this.
>
>Case in point - poked my head in the loft of somewhere I was looking to
buy: lead sheathed lighting wiring - that tells me some of the wiring
>is about 50 years old so expect to replace pronto.
knowledge. Having bought about a dozen pre-owned houses in my life, and
also read the reports of surveyors for a few, I feel I'm most of the way
there; but the average member of the public just doesn't have the
skills.
--
Roland Perry
Message has been deleted
Fredxxx
Jan 28, 2014, 3:19:41 PM1/28/14
to
Furthermore, I thought there was a distinction between who completes the
TA6, one where it is completed by the seller directly, and one where
they are absent and completed on their behalf, due to mental illness or
bankruptcy or other issue. I thought where the seller completes the
form, it has a far greater contractual significance.
Tim Jackson
Jan 28, 2014, 4:37:49 PM1/28/14
to
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:38:29 +0000, Paul Rudin wrote...
I too was wondering if the problem was that the case had been pleaded
too narrowly, and whether a better result could have been achieved with
a broader argument about misrepresentation rather than that a working
boiler was a term of the contract.
But I suppose it would have made the case more complex legally. Would
the court have been more reluctant to allocate it to the small claims
track?
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
too narrowly, and whether a better result could have been achieved with
a broader argument about misrepresentation rather than that a working
boiler was a term of the contract.
But I suppose it would have made the case more complex legally. Would
the court have been more reluctant to allocate it to the small claims
track?
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
steve robinson
Jan 28, 2014, 5:07:09 PM1/28/14
to
the contract from what the judge implies
--
steve robinson
Jan 28, 2014, 5:20:40 PM1/28/14
to
doesnt mean it was non functioning when the TA6 was filled out
A TA6 does not form part of the contract of sale unless its contents
are specifically refered too
When you buy a property unless new it doesnt come with a warranty
--
tim......
Jan 28, 2014, 5:30:03 PM1/28/14
to
"August West" <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote in message
news:87mwigc...@news2.kororaa.com...
>
> The entity calling itself Tim Watts wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday 28 January 2014 16:28 Big Les Wade wrote in
>> uk.legal.moderated:
>>
> The entity calling itself Tim Watts wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday 28 January 2014 16:28 Big Les Wade wrote in
>> uk.legal.moderated:
>>
>>> In other words, the statements made by the seller on the Property
>>> Information Form do not form part of the contract of sale.
>>>
>>> This came as a surprise to my friend, and to me. I can't help feeling
>>> it would be a surprise to the Law Society too. Does it come as a
>>> surprise to ULM members?
>>
>> This seems to set a precedent that lying on a TA6 is unlikley to be
>> remedied.
>
> However, it doesn't set a binding legal precedent, as it's only a lower
>>> Information Form do not form part of the contract of sale.
>>>
>>> This came as a surprise to my friend, and to me. I can't help feeling
>>> it would be a surprise to the Law Society too. Does it come as a
>>> surprise to ULM members?
>>
>> This seems to set a precedent that lying on a TA6 is unlikley to be
>> remedied.
>
> court. Another similar hearing could, quite legitimately, take a
> different view.
and I'm sure that they have.
Fredxxx
Jan 28, 2014, 5:30:11 PM1/28/14
to
the contract, or advising his client that is wasn't?
Janet
Jan 28, 2014, 5:34:15 PM1/28/14
to
In article <xn0ixlnd7...@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk says...
> The problem is proving that the seller lied, a failed heating system
> doesnt mean it was non functioning when the TA6 was filled out
>
> A TA6 does not form part of the contract of sale unless its contents
> are specifically refered too
>
> When you buy a property unless new it doesnt come with a warranty
In Scotland the missives may contain a clause to the effect that if
the the CH boiler fails within 5 daysof the sale completion the vendor
will compensate.
Janet
st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk says...
> The problem is proving that the seller lied, a failed heating system
> doesnt mean it was non functioning when the TA6 was filled out
>
> A TA6 does not form part of the contract of sale unless its contents
> are specifically refered too
>
> When you buy a property unless new it doesnt come with a warranty
the the CH boiler fails within 5 daysof the sale completion the vendor
will compensate.
Janet
BartC
Jan 28, 2014, 5:34:21 PM1/28/14
to
"Big Les Wade" <L...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:kQr9qnKS...@invalid.com...
> In other words, the statements made by the seller on the Property
> Information Form do not form part of the contract of sale.
It's possible the owner/landlord didn't know (or care) that the boiler was
faulty. Or maybe it did work the last time he looked. Or, a fault developed
between filling in the form, and the new owner moving in.
As the judge said, such a statement can't be a warranty; the owner cannot be
assumed to be an expert heating engineer. And with the surveyor unable to
check it, the possibility of it having a problem, in the absence of proper
warranties, should have been considered.
(What was the problem with it anyway, that required a complete replacement
of, presumably, the boiler and all the radiators and pipe-work? Maybe the CH
engineer was trying to make a bit of extra work for himself; a cheap boiler
suitable for a flat costs from £400 if it needed replacing at all.)
--
Bartc
news:kQr9qnKS...@invalid.com...
> In other words, the statements made by the seller on the Property
> Information Form do not form part of the contract of sale.
faulty. Or maybe it did work the last time he looked. Or, a fault developed
between filling in the form, and the new owner moving in.
As the judge said, such a statement can't be a warranty; the owner cannot be
assumed to be an expert heating engineer. And with the surveyor unable to
check it, the possibility of it having a problem, in the absence of proper
warranties, should have been considered.
(What was the problem with it anyway, that required a complete replacement
of, presumably, the boiler and all the radiators and pipe-work? Maybe the CH
engineer was trying to make a bit of extra work for himself; a cheap boiler
suitable for a flat costs from £400 if it needed replacing at all.)
--
Bartc
Pelican
Jan 28, 2014, 5:34:31 PM1/28/14
to
"Tim Jackson" <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.2d5232e26...@text.usenet.plus.net...
subject to the "misrepresentation" actually checked the item concerned, but
checked it inadequately. There was, in fact, no reliance on any statement.
The problem was that the check was manifestly inadequate.
Pelican
Jan 28, 2014, 5:35:18 PM1/28/14
to
fixtures. Caveat emptor. Not only was the legal principle applied by the
court applied correctly, but the buyer actually carried out her own
inspection regarding the item of concern, albeit inadequately.
steve robinson
Jan 28, 2014, 5:36:29 PM1/28/14
to
for your actions
Its quite possible the heating system was functioning when the
questions were answered
Prior to signing the contract the ops freind should have made a final
inspection to highlight any significant changes to the state of the
property
Les doesnt say wether the property had any other form of heating
--
steve robinson
Jan 28, 2014, 5:42:14 PM1/28/14
to
solicitor from the outset as they may have chosen a different tack
--
Message has been deleted
Mike Tomlinson
Jan 29, 2014, 3:41:43 AM1/29/14
to
En el artículo <7aRXUx0O...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
<rol...@perry.co.uk> escribió:
>Surveyors are generally very reluctant to even lift carpets to see
>what's underneath.
That's because they're not surveyors, they're valuers whose job is to
supply the lender with an opinion on the value of the property, so the
LTV (loan-to-value) of the mortgage can be determined.
Even though the buyer pays for the valuation, the "surveyor" is working
on behalf of the mortgagor, not the buyer.
--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
<rol...@perry.co.uk> escribió:
>Surveyors are generally very reluctant to even lift carpets to see
>what's underneath.
supply the lender with an opinion on the value of the property, so the
LTV (loan-to-value) of the mortgage can be determined.
Even though the buyer pays for the valuation, the "surveyor" is working
on behalf of the mortgagor, not the buyer.
--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Roland Perry
Jan 29, 2014, 4:32:58 AM1/29/14
to
In message <XO0WXaCQ...@jasper.org.uk>, at 08:41:43 on Wed, 29 Jan
2014, Mike Tomlinson <mi...@jasper.org.uk> remarked:
encountered drive-by valuers).
The survey reports I refer to are the upmarket ones where the buyer ends
up with what amounts to a 10-page 'snag list' of all the things the
surveyor has spotted. But even then, the reports can be full of "I
couldn't inspect this or that because..."
>Even though the buyer pays for the valuation, the "surveyor" is working
>on behalf of the mortgagor, not the buyer.
While the lender may also require his own valuation, a buyer is quite at
liberty to directly employ his own surveyor (and I have on a couple of
occasions). The buyer may not even have picked a lender by that stage.
--
Roland Perry
2014, Mike Tomlinson <mi...@jasper.org.uk> remarked:
>>Surveyors are generally very reluctant to even lift carpets to see
>>what's underneath.
>
>That's because they're not surveyors, they're valuers whose job is to
>supply the lender with an opinion on the value of the property, so the
>LTV (loan-to-value) of the mortgage can be determined.
I'm aware of the difference between surveyors and valuers (I've even
>>what's underneath.
>
>That's because they're not surveyors, they're valuers whose job is to
>supply the lender with an opinion on the value of the property, so the
>LTV (loan-to-value) of the mortgage can be determined.
encountered drive-by valuers).
The survey reports I refer to are the upmarket ones where the buyer ends
up with what amounts to a 10-page 'snag list' of all the things the
surveyor has spotted. But even then, the reports can be full of "I
couldn't inspect this or that because..."
>Even though the buyer pays for the valuation, the "surveyor" is working
>on behalf of the mortgagor, not the buyer.
liberty to directly employ his own surveyor (and I have on a couple of
occasions). The buyer may not even have picked a lender by that stage.
--
Roland Perry
Percy Picacity
Jan 29, 2014, 4:35:43 AM1/29/14
to
In article <XO0WXaCQ...@jasper.org.uk>,
Even if you pay a moderate sum of money for a structural survey it is
often the case that nothing nailed or glued down is lifted, no ladder is
used, and no comment is made on mysterious arcane specialist systems
such as electric wiring. Especially if he current owner is not very
co-operative.
--
Percy Picacity
often the case that nothing nailed or glued down is lifted, no ladder is
used, and no comment is made on mysterious arcane specialist systems
such as electric wiring. Especially if he current owner is not very
co-operative.
--
Percy Picacity
The Todal
Jan 29, 2014, 4:40:54 AM1/29/14
to
A boiler that "simply didn't work at all" - what does that mean? That it
was a hollow shell, with the contents removed? That it had a defect
which made it beyond economic repair? Is it possible that the purchaser
was misled by a gas fitter who said "not worth repairing, get yourself a
nice new condenser boiler" when another fitter might have got it working
again by replacing a minor part?
She sued in the "small claims court" - there isn't really a small claims
court so presumably it was the county court and the case was allocated
to the small claims track. Didn't she ask her conveyancing solicitor for
advice first? Was there no correspondence with the seller and her
solicitor? Is it possible that the boiler was working when the vendor
last switched it on?
Suing as a litigant in person is fraught with difficulties. To succeed,
I think it would be necessary to plead the case as misrepresentation
pursuant to the Misrepresentation Act 1967. I doubt if one would expect
the District Judge to find in one's favour without some fairly skilled
advocacy by a good lawyer. I'd be interested to see a transcript of the
judge's findings, if such a thing was available.
The Todal
Jan 29, 2014, 4:42:33 AM1/29/14
to
On 28/1/14 17:26, Tim Watts wrote:
> This seems to set a precedent that lying on a TA6 is unlikley to be
> remedied.
>
A decision by a District Judge (the lowliest of judges) in a case where
> This seems to set a precedent that lying on a TA6 is unlikley to be
> remedied.
>
there were litigants in person is no sort of precedent at all. Many
cases fail simply on their facts or because the case was not argued very
skilfully.
Roland Perry
Jan 29, 2014, 5:06:45 AM1/29/14
to
In message <bks0kv...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:40:54 on Wed, 29
Jan 2014, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> remarked:
>A boiler that "simply didn't work at all" - what does that mean?
I think the two most common faults are a dead controller board or a
seized pump. Either could occur during a period when the house was
unoccupied.
--
Roland Perry
Jan 2014, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> remarked:
>A boiler that "simply didn't work at all" - what does that mean?
seized pump. Either could occur during a period when the house was
unoccupied.
--
Roland Perry
BartC
Jan 29, 2014, 5:29:33 AM1/29/14
to
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QXmNncOd...@perry.co.uk...
was a flat.
--
Bartc
Mark
Jan 29, 2014, 5:31:40 AM1/29/14
to
basic valuation survey. It's not clear to me whether this is what the
OP paid for or whether he paid extra for a homebuyer's report or full
structural survey.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?
Roland Perry
Jan 29, 2014, 5:47:13 AM1/29/14
to
In message <CJ4Gu.12082$kt1....@fx07.am4>, at 10:29:33 on Wed, 29 Jan
2014, BartC <b...@freeuk.com> remarked:
decided that more than the boiler itself needed replacing. It could be
that a lot of work would have to be done to bring the flue within
current regulations, especially in a flat.
--
Roland Perry
2014, BartC <b...@freeuk.com> remarked:
>>>A boiler that "simply didn't work at all" - what does that mean?
>>
>> I think the two most common faults are a dead controller board or a
>>seized pump. Either could occur during a period when the house was
>>unoccupied.
>
>And neither would cost 'several thousand pounds' to fix, especially as
>this was a flat.
It's a very plausible estimate from a plumber, especially if they have
>>
>> I think the two most common faults are a dead controller board or a
>>seized pump. Either could occur during a period when the house was
>>unoccupied.
>
>And neither would cost 'several thousand pounds' to fix, especially as
>this was a flat.
decided that more than the boiler itself needed replacing. It could be
that a lot of work would have to be done to bring the flue within
current regulations, especially in a flat.
--
Roland Perry
BartC
Jan 29, 2014, 8:21:14 AM1/29/14
to
"Janet" <h...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.2d5240bc1...@news.individual.net...
carelessness? A knowledgeable buyer could probably tweak an older boiler in
such a way as to fail requiring a replacement.
But this might just mean that prices increase a little to allow for the
possibility of these extra costs. It might also mean favouring a sale during
the summer when the heating system is not going to be turned on until the
Autumn! (But then, this is in Scotland...)
--
Bartc
Janet
Jan 29, 2014, 2:57:57 PM1/29/14
to
In article <4Qm3mkSd...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk says...
Exactly that happened to my son when the old gas CH boiler died in his
3rd floor tenement flat. The old gas flue vent did not meet modern
installation standards. The new flue exterior work required three-story
access scaffolding at the rear of the building. Because of the height a
scaffolding contractor was required. There was no vehicle access to the
rear court of the building so every piece of scaffolding had to be taken
through the building from the front road to the back yard.
Scaffolding hire and erection/dismantling cost more than the new boiler
:-(
Janet UK
3rd floor tenement flat. The old gas flue vent did not meet modern
installation standards. The new flue exterior work required three-story
access scaffolding at the rear of the building. Because of the height a
scaffolding contractor was required. There was no vehicle access to the
rear court of the building so every piece of scaffolding had to be taken
through the building from the front road to the back yard.
Scaffolding hire and erection/dismantling cost more than the new boiler
:-(
Janet UK
steve robinson
Jan 30, 2014, 1:08:13 AM1/30/14
to
Control boards £35 to £150 plus install costs
--
Roland Perry
Jan 30, 2014, 2:57:10 AM1/30/14
to
In message <xn0ixnqw...@reader80.eternal-september.org>, at
06:08:13 on Thu, 30 Jan 2014, steve robinson
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> remarked:
new boiler, rather than fix the old one. Quite likely they spotted all
sorts of other things wrong as soon as they were called in.
Having spent three weeks with more-than-daily visits from gas engineers
one February while they continued to fail to fix the boiler in the house
I was renting, I have some sympathy with the view that there comes a
point when a boiler should be declared "beyond economic repair", even if
the alleged faulty part is itself quite small and cheap (I think it was
the part that detects water flowing and ignites the boiler, as it was an
on-demand system).
--
Roland Perry
06:08:13 on Thu, 30 Jan 2014, steve robinson
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> remarked:
>> > > A boiler that "simply didn't work at all" - what does that mean?
>> >
>> > I think the two most common faults are a dead controller board or a
>> > seized pump. Either could occur during a period when the house was
>> > unoccupied.
>>
>> And neither would cost 'several thousand pounds' to fix, especially
>> as this was a flat.
>
>Pump £65 plus install costs
>
>Control boards £35 to £150 plus install costs
Clearly, in this case the fault has caused the plumber to quote for a
>> >
>> > I think the two most common faults are a dead controller board or a
>> > seized pump. Either could occur during a period when the house was
>> > unoccupied.
>>
>> And neither would cost 'several thousand pounds' to fix, especially
>> as this was a flat.
>
>Pump £65 plus install costs
>
>Control boards £35 to £150 plus install costs
new boiler, rather than fix the old one. Quite likely they spotted all
sorts of other things wrong as soon as they were called in.
Having spent three weeks with more-than-daily visits from gas engineers
one February while they continued to fail to fix the boiler in the house
I was renting, I have some sympathy with the view that there comes a
point when a boiler should be declared "beyond economic repair", even if
the alleged faulty part is itself quite small and cheap (I think it was
the part that detects water flowing and ignites the boiler, as it was an
on-demand system).
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
Jan 30, 2014, 6:22:06 AM1/30/14
to
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:57:10 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
Neil
--
Neil Williams. Use neil before the at to reply.
wrote:
> Having spent three weeks with more-than-daily visits from gas
engineers
> one February while they continued to fail to fix the boiler in the
house
> I was renting, I have some sympathy with the view that there comes
a
> point when a boiler should be declared "beyond economic repair",
even if
> the alleged faulty part is itself quite small and cheap (I think it
was
> the part that detects water flowing and ignites the boiler, as it
was an
> on-demand system).
Took me 5 minutes to replace that component myself on mine.
engineers
> one February while they continued to fail to fix the boiler in the
house
> I was renting, I have some sympathy with the view that there comes
a
> point when a boiler should be declared "beyond economic repair",
even if
> the alleged faulty part is itself quite small and cheap (I think it
was
> the part that detects water flowing and ignites the boiler, as it
was an
> on-demand system).
Neil
--
Neil Williams. Use neil before the at to reply.
Message has been deleted
Roland Perry
Jan 30, 2014, 8:12:26 AM1/30/14
to
In message <almarsoft.3244...@news.individual.net>, at
11:22:06 on Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Neil Williams
<wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> remarked:
advertises maintenance contracts (of which my landlord had one) pay
visits daily for three weeks, failing to do so.
The situation was only resolved when they finally brought in a
trouble-shooting engineer from the boiler manufacturer.
--
Roland Perry
11:22:06 on Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Neil Williams
<wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> remarked:
>> Having spent three weeks with more-than-daily visits from gas
>>engineers one February while they continued to fail to fix the
>>boiler in the house I was renting, I have some sympathy with the
>>view that there comes a point when a boiler should be declared
>>"beyond economic repair", even if the alleged faulty part is itself
>>quite small and cheap (I think it was the part that detects water
>>flowing and ignites the boiler, as it was an on-demand system).
>
>Took me 5 minutes to replace that component myself on mine.
YMMV clearly. I had numerous engineers from a well know gas supplier who
>>engineers one February while they continued to fail to fix the
>>boiler in the house I was renting, I have some sympathy with the
>>view that there comes a point when a boiler should be declared
>>"beyond economic repair", even if the alleged faulty part is itself
>>quite small and cheap (I think it was the part that detects water
>>flowing and ignites the boiler, as it was an on-demand system).
>
>Took me 5 minutes to replace that component myself on mine.
advertises maintenance contracts (of which my landlord had one) pay
visits daily for three weeks, failing to do so.
The situation was only resolved when they finally brought in a
trouble-shooting engineer from the boiler manufacturer.
--
Roland Perry
Vir Campestris
Jan 30, 2014, 3:59:55 PM1/30/14
to
On 28/01/2014 17:26, Tim Watts wrote:
> Case in point - poked my head in the loft of somewhere I was looking to
> buy: lead sheathed lighting wiring - that tells me some of the wiring is
>> >about 50 years old so expect to replace pronto.
<me too>
So I got a quote from a builder.
Which went up 8 fold after we'd bought the property :(
We haven't finished with him yet.
Andy
> Case in point - poked my head in the loft of somewhere I was looking to
> buy: lead sheathed lighting wiring - that tells me some of the wiring is
>> >about 50 years old so expect to replace pronto.
<me too>
So I got a quote from a builder.
Which went up 8 fold after we'd bought the property :(
We haven't finished with him yet.
Andy
steve robinson
Jan 30, 2014, 5:25:56 PM1/30/14
to
Flogging you a new boiler is a far better money spinner, Average
install cost £400 margin on boiler £200 to £400 depending on unit
supplied.
Boiler swap shouldnt take more than a day
Most components for modern boilers are relatively cheap to buy
--
steve robinson
Jan 30, 2014, 5:28:15 PM1/30/14
to
central heating system for £3000.00
This well known company couldnt get the parts , no longer available
yyada yyada.
I got the part locally to me for £5.00 fitted it and the boiler ran
like clockwork for another 7 years.
The stock answer when she complained was our suppliers do not supply
the parts so as far as we are concerned the unit is obsolete , other
suppliers may carry the spares.
--
Janet
Jan 30, 2014, 7:53:12 PM1/30/14
to
In article <x8udnYLj4OXdIHfP...@brightview.co.uk>,
vir.cam...@invalid.invalid says...
> So I got a quote from a builder.
>
> Which went up 8 fold after we'd bought the property :(
>
> We haven't finished with him yet.
If a builder ever demonstrated such incompetence to me, he would never
get started.
Janet
vir.cam...@invalid.invalid says...
> So I got a quote from a builder.
>
> Which went up 8 fold after we'd bought the property :(
>
> We haven't finished with him yet.
get started.
Janet
Roland Perry
Jan 31, 2014, 4:32:04 AM1/31/14
to
In message <xn0ixogo...@reader80.eternal-september.org>, at
22:28:15 on Thu, 30 Jan 2014, steve robinson
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> remarked:
point in trying to sell me a new system. The landlord was 1,000 miles
away and disinterested in spending any money (the stair carpet was
theadbare for example), hence the need for them to keep plugging away at
a boiler repair.
--
Roland Perry
22:28:15 on Thu, 30 Jan 2014, steve robinson
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> remarked:
>>I had numerous engineers from a well know gas supplier
>> who advertises maintenance contracts (of which my landlord had one)
>> pay visits daily for three weeks, failing to do so.
>>
>> The situation was only resolved when they finally brought in a
>> trouble-shooting engineer from the boiler manufacturer.
>
>My mum had a similar issue, more interested in flogging her a new
>central heating system for £3000.00
In my case the engineers knew it was a rental, and so there wasn't any
>> who advertises maintenance contracts (of which my landlord had one)
>> pay visits daily for three weeks, failing to do so.
>>
>> The situation was only resolved when they finally brought in a
>> trouble-shooting engineer from the boiler manufacturer.
>
>My mum had a similar issue, more interested in flogging her a new
>central heating system for £3000.00
point in trying to sell me a new system. The landlord was 1,000 miles
away and disinterested in spending any money (the stair carpet was
theadbare for example), hence the need for them to keep plugging away at
a boiler repair.
--
Roland Perry
Big Les Wade
Feb 3, 2014, 10:43:26 AM2/3/14
to
Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> posted
>On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:38:29 +0000, Paul Rudin wrote...
>>
>> The belt and braces approach would be to sue in misrepresentation as
>> well as for breach of contract. If the statements made are not
>> contractual terms they might still be false statements of fact intended
>> to induce the contract...
>>
>> Presumably there is precedent that covers this situation?
>
>I too was wondering if the problem was that the case had been pleaded
>too narrowly, and whether a better result could have been achieved with
>a broader argument about misrepresentation rather than that a working
>boiler was a term of the contract.
I have to confess here that my OP presented a simplified picture, in
order to keep its length within bounds.
My friend did indeed present two grounds of claim - the first one being
the one I described, essentially for breach of contract; and also, as a
fallback, a misrepresentation claim which the judge also dismissed.
I did not include that latter claim in my OP because I wasn't
particularly surprised that it failed. Whereas the failure of the breach
of contract claim surprised me very much, since it unambiguously implies
that a buyer has no legal recourse against a the vendor who makes false
statements in a property information form.
What has surprised me even more is that no-one here seems equally
surprised. I had expected most legal professionals to say something
like, 'Eh? We've been getting our clients to fill in TA6s for years, and
warning them to be careful about their replies because they could be
held liable, and in fact the preamble to the form says exactly that; and
now it turns out they aren't liable? Wot's all that abaht then?"
But no. It seems that no-one ever believed that TA6s were enforceable
against the vendor. In which I have to ask: what's the point of them?
And shouldn't the public at large be told this?
[Sorry to be slow replying - pressure of work. Also sorry I have ignored
all the posts about how the purchaser should have done this or should
have checked that before buying the flat; that isn't really what I was
asking about.]
--
Les
>On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:38:29 +0000, Paul Rudin wrote...
>>
>> Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com> writes:
>>
>>
>> > In other words, the statements made by the seller on the Property
>> > Information Form do not form part of the contract of sale.
>> Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com> writes:
>>
>>
>> > In other words, the statements made by the seller on the Property
>>
>> The belt and braces approach would be to sue in misrepresentation as
>> well as for breach of contract. If the statements made are not
>> contractual terms they might still be false statements of fact intended
>> to induce the contract...
>>
>> Presumably there is precedent that covers this situation?
>
>I too was wondering if the problem was that the case had been pleaded
>too narrowly, and whether a better result could have been achieved with
>a broader argument about misrepresentation rather than that a working
>boiler was a term of the contract.
I have to confess here that my OP presented a simplified picture, in
order to keep its length within bounds.
My friend did indeed present two grounds of claim - the first one being
the one I described, essentially for breach of contract; and also, as a
fallback, a misrepresentation claim which the judge also dismissed.
I did not include that latter claim in my OP because I wasn't
particularly surprised that it failed. Whereas the failure of the breach
of contract claim surprised me very much, since it unambiguously implies
that a buyer has no legal recourse against a the vendor who makes false
statements in a property information form.
What has surprised me even more is that no-one here seems equally
surprised. I had expected most legal professionals to say something
like, 'Eh? We've been getting our clients to fill in TA6s for years, and
warning them to be careful about their replies because they could be
held liable, and in fact the preamble to the form says exactly that; and
now it turns out they aren't liable? Wot's all that abaht then?"
But no. It seems that no-one ever believed that TA6s were enforceable
against the vendor. In which I have to ask: what's the point of them?
And shouldn't the public at large be told this?
[Sorry to be slow replying - pressure of work. Also sorry I have ignored
all the posts about how the purchaser should have done this or should
have checked that before buying the flat; that isn't really what I was
asking about.]
--
Les
The Todal
Feb 3, 2014, 11:23:00 AM2/3/14
to
professionals" when I'd guess that only about half a dozen are. Of whom
probably none specialise in conveyancing.
> like, 'Eh? We've been getting our clients to fill in TA6s for years, and
> warning them to be careful about their replies because they could be
> held liable, and in fact the preamble to the form says exactly that; and
> now it turns out they aren't liable? Wot's all that abaht then?"
>
> But no. It seems that no-one ever believed that TA6s were enforceable
> against the vendor. In which I have to ask: what's the point of them?
> And shouldn't the public at large be told this?
>
> [Sorry to be slow replying - pressure of work. Also sorry I have ignored
> all the posts about how the purchaser should have done this or should
> have checked that before buying the flat; that isn't really what I was
> asking about.]
>
case it is impossible to say whether the judge got the law wrong or the
claimant presented his/her case badly.
What you can say with absolute confidence is that this isn't a case
which is a precedent for any other similar case.
It doesn't surprise me in the least that a litigant with a good case
lost at trial. That happens all the time. It is never a question of
going to the judge and collecting the compensation that is rightfully
yours. There's many a slip, and it's particularly dangerous to be a
litigant in person before a district judge when the dispute is anything
more complex than a low value sale of goods claim.
Stuart A. Bronstein
Feb 3, 2014, 11:42:34 AM2/3/14
to
Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> I did not include that latter claim in my OP because I wasn't
> particularly surprised that it failed. Whereas the failure of
> the breach of contract claim surprised me very much, since it
> unambiguously implies that a buyer has no legal recourse against
> a the vendor who makes false statements in a property
> information form.
Whether in breach of contract or for misrepresentation, you can only
>
> I did not include that latter claim in my OP because I wasn't
> particularly surprised that it failed. Whereas the failure of
> the breach of contract claim surprised me very much, since it
> unambiguously implies that a buyer has no legal recourse against
> a the vendor who makes false statements in a property
> information form.
win if you convince the judge (among other things) that, based on the
failure to disclose, you reasonably believed the boiler was in proper
working order, and that you relied on that belief in making the offer
to buy.
Apparently the judge didn't believe there was a right to believe in
or rely on it being in good operating order. Personally I was
surpirsed to read that.
I have seen judges do stupid things in my time. Perhaps that's what
happened this time.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Pelican
Feb 4, 2014, 2:07:29 AM2/4/14
to
"Big Les Wade" <L...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OHiujyCI...@invalid.com...
at least to the vendor's knowledge and belief. The purchaser is then free
to make further enquiries, given that information.
> And shouldn't the public at large be told this?
a prudent purchaser is not required to rely on the replies and usually does
make his or her own enquiries. It's a bit rich for a purchaser who actually
gets his or her own check made on the property to turn around and claim
compensation from the vendor for defective things a check should have turned
up, when the actual check was somewhat economical in performance.
steve robinson
Feb 4, 2014, 4:58:27 AM2/4/14
to
and not part of a list of pre contractual writings.
Its up to the buyer to check before signing the contract that
everything discussed is in order, and there are no significant changes
from the start of the pre contract negotiations.
--
Message has been deleted
steve robinson
Feb 4, 2014, 7:32:02 AM2/4/14
to
August West wrote:
>
> The entity calling itself steve robinson wrote:
> negotiations are done via contract drafts ("missives"). These are
> standardised and comprehensive, and the only communication between
> buying and selling solicitors (other than the covering letters). They
> normally contain detailed specifications about working heating,
> windows, and so on.
The English way of house purchase is somewhat outdated and does need
some reform
--
>
> The entity calling itself steve robinson wrote:
> >
> > Big Les Wade wrote:
> >>
> >> But no. It seems that no-one ever believed that TA6s were
> enforceable >> against the vendor. In which I have to ask: what's the
> point of them? >> And shouldn't the public at large be told this?
> >>
> > Big Les Wade wrote:
> >>
> >> But no. It seems that no-one ever believed that TA6s were
> enforceable >> against the vendor. In which I have to ask: what's the
> point of them? >> And shouldn't the public at large be told this?
> >>
> > They are enforceable if they are part of the final contract of sale
> > and not part of a list of pre contractual writings.
> >
> > Its up to the buyer to check before signing the contract that
> > everything discussed is in order, and there are no significant
> > changes from the start of the pre contract negotiations.
>
> Whereas in Scotland, there are no "pre contract" negotiations, as all
> > and not part of a list of pre contractual writings.
> >
> > Its up to the buyer to check before signing the contract that
> > everything discussed is in order, and there are no significant
> > changes from the start of the pre contract negotiations.
>
> negotiations are done via contract drafts ("missives"). These are
> standardised and comprehensive, and the only communication between
> buying and selling solicitors (other than the covering letters). They
> normally contain detailed specifications about working heating,
> windows, and so on.
The English way of house purchase is somewhat outdated and does need
some reform
--
Message has been deleted
The Todal
Feb 4, 2014, 7:59:31 AM2/4/14
to
On 4/2/14 09:58, steve robinson wrote:
> Big Les Wade wrote:
>>
> Big Les Wade wrote:
>>
>> What has surprised me even more is that no-one here seems equally
>> surprised. I had expected most legal professionals to say something
>> like, 'Eh? We've been getting our clients to fill in TA6s for years,
>> and warning them to be careful about their replies because they could
>> be held liable, and in fact the preamble to the form says exactly
>> that; and now it turns out they aren't liable? Wot's all that abaht
>> then?"
>>
>> But no. It seems that no-one ever believed that TA6s were enforceable
>> against the vendor. In which I have to ask: what's the point of them?
>> And shouldn't the public at large be told this?
>>
>> [Sorry to be slow replying - pressure of work. Also sorry I have
>> ignored all the posts about how the purchaser should have done this
>> or should have checked that before buying the flat; that isn't really
>> what I was asking about.]
>
> They are enforceable if they are part of the final contract of sale
> and not part of a list of pre contractual writings.
>
> Its up to the buyer to check before signing the contract that
> everything discussed is in order, and there are no significant changes
> from the start of the pre contract negotiations.
>
That, with respect, sounds like a guess rather than an informed
>> surprised. I had expected most legal professionals to say something
>> like, 'Eh? We've been getting our clients to fill in TA6s for years,
>> and warning them to be careful about their replies because they could
>> be held liable, and in fact the preamble to the form says exactly
>> that; and now it turns out they aren't liable? Wot's all that abaht
>> then?"
>>
>> But no. It seems that no-one ever believed that TA6s were enforceable
>> against the vendor. In which I have to ask: what's the point of them?
>> And shouldn't the public at large be told this?
>>
>> [Sorry to be slow replying - pressure of work. Also sorry I have
>> ignored all the posts about how the purchaser should have done this
>> or should have checked that before buying the flat; that isn't really
>> what I was asking about.]
>
> They are enforceable if they are part of the final contract of sale
> and not part of a list of pre contractual writings.
>
> Its up to the buyer to check before signing the contract that
> everything discussed is in order, and there are no significant changes
> from the start of the pre contract negotiations.
>
statement of the law.
Misrepresentation in the Property Information Form certainly can result
in valid claims for damages from the purchaser. I give links to a few
relevant cases below. Perhaps (I don't know, because I haven't
researched it in much detail) there might be a distinction between
misrepresentation which causes the purchaser to incur an unexpected
expense and misrepresentation that affects the value of the land.
Here, I'm afraid we don't have sufficient information from the OP. We
don't know what the defect in the boiler was, or whether the seller
admitted that it was non-functioning when the pre-contract negotiations
were continuing. We don't know whether the Contract of Sale contained an
exclusion clause limiting liability. More important, we don't know what
reasoning the judge adopted in reaching the conclusion that the claim
failed. Regrettably "I lost, so the public needs to be informed that
these forms are worthless" is an excessively simplistic view of the case.
I don't think any of us can try to second-guess the judge's reasoning
based on an incomplete set of facts.
Relevant cases:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2006/3746.html
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/2447.html
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/299.html
Janet
Feb 4, 2014, 8:14:05 AM2/4/14
to
In article <87a9e7n...@news2.kororaa.com>, aug...@kororaa.com
says...
> The Scottish system has the disasdvantage of incurrring solicitor's
> costs early on - even on failed offers (eg at a sealed bids closing), as
> a formal missive (ie full contractual offer) is required to be
> submitted.
>
> But the costs of that initial missive (and, indeed, the whole missive
> process) has dropped recently, with the almost universal adoption of the
> standard missives.
>
> And the Home Buyers Report system, while not perfect, has saved buyers a
> lot of money in a rising market, as it no longer requires multiple
> surveys of the house before the closing date. I think I paid for seven
> or eight surveys and initial missives in the months before I bought my
> current house. But that was in the riging market of Edinburgh the mid
> 90s.
I've never been charged for failed offers in Scotland; nor, for an
offer that was proceeding until the vendor's lawyer discovered some
jiggerypokery by his client and withdrew it from sale.
Janet.
says...
> costs early on - even on failed offers (eg at a sealed bids closing), as
> a formal missive (ie full contractual offer) is required to be
> submitted.
>
> But the costs of that initial missive (and, indeed, the whole missive
> process) has dropped recently, with the almost universal adoption of the
> standard missives.
>
> And the Home Buyers Report system, while not perfect, has saved buyers a
> lot of money in a rising market, as it no longer requires multiple
> surveys of the house before the closing date. I think I paid for seven
> or eight surveys and initial missives in the months before I bought my
> current house. But that was in the riging market of Edinburgh the mid
> 90s.
I've never been charged for failed offers in Scotland; nor, for an
offer that was proceeding until the vendor's lawyer discovered some
jiggerypokery by his client and withdrew it from sale.
Janet.
Stuart A. Bronstein
Feb 4, 2014, 10:18:20 AM2/4/14
to
August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
> steve robinson wrote:
>>
>> Its up to the buyer to check before signing the contract that
>> everything discussed is in order, and there are no significant
>> changes from the start of the pre contract negotiations.
>
>>
>> Its up to the buyer to check before signing the contract that
>> everything discussed is in order, and there are no significant
>> changes from the start of the pre contract negotiations.
>
> Whereas in Scotland, there are no "pre contract" negotiations,
> as all negotiations are done via contract drafts ("missives").
> These are standardised and comprehensive, and the only
> communication between buying and selling solicitors (other than
> the covering letters). They normally contain detailed
> specifications about working heating, windows, and so on.
Here the process is very similar.
> as all negotiations are done via contract drafts ("missives").
> These are standardised and comprehensive, and the only
> communication between buying and selling solicitors (other than
> the covering letters). They normally contain detailed
> specifications about working heating, windows, and so on.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Big Les Wade
Feb 4, 2014, 2:49:44 PM2/4/14
to
The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> posted
function at all. My friend tried to get it repaired but the plumbers she
contacted said it was cheaper to install a new boiler.
>or whether the seller admitted that it was non-functioning when the
>pre-contract negotiations were continuing.
No, of course she didn't. She said it was functioning.
>We don't know whether the Contract of Sale contained an exclusion
>clause limiting liability.
It contained the standard clause "Neither party can rely on any
representation made by the other unless made in writing by the other or
his conveyancer but this does not exclude liability for fraud or
recklessness."
In this case, the representation in question *was* made in writing.
>More important, we don't know what reasoning the judge adopted in
>reaching the conclusion that the claim failed. Regrettably "I lost, so
>the public needs to be informed that these forms are worthless" is an
>excessively simplistic view of the case.
>
>I don't think any of us can try to second-guess the judge's reasoning
>based on an incomplete set of facts.
I can provide a copy of the judge's letter summarising her judgement if
anyone is that interested. Email me on 167898 at gmail dot com.
>
>Relevant cases:
>
>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2006/3746.html
>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/2447.html
>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/299.html
I like the one about the horrific murder!
--
Les
>Here, I'm afraid we don't have sufficient information from the OP. We
>don't know what the defect in the boiler was,
I don't know why this is relevant, but as I have already said, it didn't
>don't know what the defect in the boiler was,
function at all. My friend tried to get it repaired but the plumbers she
contacted said it was cheaper to install a new boiler.
>or whether the seller admitted that it was non-functioning when the
>pre-contract negotiations were continuing.
>We don't know whether the Contract of Sale contained an exclusion
>clause limiting liability.
representation made by the other unless made in writing by the other or
his conveyancer but this does not exclude liability for fraud or
recklessness."
In this case, the representation in question *was* made in writing.
>More important, we don't know what reasoning the judge adopted in
>reaching the conclusion that the claim failed. Regrettably "I lost, so
>the public needs to be informed that these forms are worthless" is an
>excessively simplistic view of the case.
>
>I don't think any of us can try to second-guess the judge's reasoning
>based on an incomplete set of facts.
anyone is that interested. Email me on 167898 at gmail dot com.
>
>Relevant cases:
>
>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2006/3746.html
>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/2447.html
>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/299.html
--
Les
steve robinson
Feb 4, 2014, 5:01:52 PM2/4/14
to
the PIF that the heating system was functional, heating systems do
fail if not run for long periods this is not misrepresentation.
Thats why prior to signing the contract its up to the purchaser to make
sure all is in order.
I think this was the problem the DJ had to reason with.
Most house sales in the uk are of 'used' properties, like a used car
from a private seller its buyer beware
People skimp on the surveys and legals , you get what you pay for.
It doesnt really matter what you negotiate if its not in the contract
its not part of the contract
> Misrepresentation in the Property Information Form certainly can
> result in valid claims for damages from the purchaser. I give links
> to a few relevant cases below. Perhaps (I don't know, because I
> haven't researched it in much detail) there might be a distinction
> between misrepresentation which causes the purchaser to incur an
> unexpected expense and misrepresentation that affects the value of
> the land.
>
> Here, I'm afraid we don't have sufficient information from the OP. We
> don't know what the defect in the boiler was, or whether the seller
> admitted that it was non-functioning when the pre-contract
> negotiations were continuing. We don't know whether the Contract of
> Sale contained an exclusion clause limiting liability. More
> important, we don't know what reasoning the judge adopted in reaching
> the conclusion that the claim failed. Regrettably "I lost, so the
> public needs to be informed that these forms are worthless" is an
> excessively simplistic view of the case.
>
> I don't think any of us can try to second-guess the judge's reasoning
> based on an incomplete set of facts.
>
> Relevant cases:
>
> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2006/3746.html
> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/2447.html
> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/299.html
The Todal
Feb 5, 2014, 5:24:57 AM2/5/14
to
On 4/2/14 19:49, Big Les Wade wrote:
> The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> posted
>> Here, I'm afraid we don't have sufficient information from the OP. We
>> don't know what the defect in the boiler was,
>
> I don't know why this is relevant
It must surely be relevant to consider whether it was a major or minor
> The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> posted
>> Here, I'm afraid we don't have sufficient information from the OP. We
>> don't know what the defect in the boiler was,
>
> I don't know why this is relevant
defect. If you remove a fuse from the circuit, the boiler could be
described as dead, not working at all, useless. Put the fuse back and
problem solved.
, but as I have already said, it didn't
> function at all. My friend tried to get it repaired but the plumbers she
> contacted said it was cheaper to install a new boiler.
>
>> or whether the seller admitted that it was non-functioning when the
>> pre-contract negotiations were continuing.
>
> No, of course she didn't. She said it was functioning.
When sued, did she concede that it was non functioning when she
completed the form or did she say or imply that it was working to the
best of her knowledge and that her answer was therefore correct?
>
>> We don't know whether the Contract of Sale contained an exclusion
>> clause limiting liability.
>
> It contained the standard clause "Neither party can rely on any
> representation made by the other unless made in writing by the other or
> his conveyancer but this does not exclude liability for fraud or
> recklessness."
>
> In this case, the representation in question *was* made in writing.
>
>> More important, we don't know what reasoning the judge adopted in
>> reaching the conclusion that the claim failed. Regrettably "I lost, so
>> the public needs to be informed that these forms are worthless" is an
>> excessively simplistic view of the case.
>>
>> I don't think any of us can try to second-guess the judge's reasoning
>> based on an incomplete set of facts.
>
> I can provide a copy of the judge's letter summarising her judgement if
> anyone is that interested. Email me on 167898 at gmail dot com.
>
>>
>> Relevant cases:
>>
>> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2006/3746.html
>> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/2447.html
>> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/299.html
>
> I like the one about the horrific murder!
>
where a murder has taken place. Presumably there is usually an
assumption that nobody wants to live there, especially if there might be
some body parts under floorboards, to be found one day by an electrician
or plumber.
Percy Picacity
Feb 5, 2014, 5:38:29 AM2/5/14
to
In article <blegan...@mid.individual.net>,
house where it took place, clearly feeling that his property has been
somewhat reduced in value, has demanded public money from the local
council or the Welsh government to compensate him for demolishing it. I
don't know if he got it.
--
Percy Picacity
The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
> I have sometimes idly wondered whose decision it is to demolish a house
> where a murder has taken place. Presumably there is usually an
> assumption that nobody wants to live there, especially if there might be
> some body parts under floorboards, to be found one day by an electrician
> or plumber.
After a recent very unpleasant child murder in Wales the landlord of the
>
> I have sometimes idly wondered whose decision it is to demolish a house
> where a murder has taken place. Presumably there is usually an
> assumption that nobody wants to live there, especially if there might be
> some body parts under floorboards, to be found one day by an electrician
> or plumber.
house where it took place, clearly feeling that his property has been
somewhat reduced in value, has demanded public money from the local
council or the Welsh government to compensate him for demolishing it. I
don't know if he got it.
--
Percy Picacity
Chris R
Feb 5, 2014, 5:42:21 AM2/5/14
to
>
>
> "The Todal" wrote in message news:blegan...@mid.individual.net...
> I have sometimes idly wondered whose decision it is to demolish a house
> where a murder has taken place. Presumably there is usually an assumption
> that nobody wants to live there, especially if there might be some body
> parts under floorboards, to be found one day by an electrician or plumber.
uninhabitable and possibly beyond economic repair anyway.
--
Chris R
Paul Rudin
Feb 5, 2014, 6:16:40 AM2/5/14
to
> I like the one about the horrific murder!
Yeah, Sykes v Taylor-Rose illustrates the usual rule (see e.g. Keates v
Earl of Cadogan): that (in general) silence is not a misrepresentation.
In part it's a practical thing: where would you draw the line about what
you should volunteer if it were otherwise?
Message has been deleted
Walt
Feb 5, 2014, 4:22:11 PM2/5/14
to
The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in
news:blegan...@mid.individual.net:
My neighbour wouldn't leave the house one day when a body was discovered
on a nearby playing field. "I'm not driving past a dead body!" she
said. Goodness knows how she would react to discovering there had been
a "horrific murder" in her house.
Walt
news:blegan...@mid.individual.net:
on a nearby playing field. "I'm not driving past a dead body!" she
said. Goodness knows how she would react to discovering there had been
a "horrific murder" in her house.
Walt
Mark Goodge
Feb 5, 2014, 4:31:43 PM2/5/14
to
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 21:22:11 +0000, Walt put finger to keyboard and typed:
crematorium, then, or even any church or chapel where funerals are commonly
held. Not to mention hospitals and care homes, which not infrequently (for
obvious reasons) contain dead bodies.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
>> I have sometimes idly wondered whose decision it is to demolish a
>> house where a murder has taken place. Presumably there is usually an
>> assumption that nobody wants to live there, especially if there might
>> be some body parts under floorboards, to be found one day by an
>> electrician or plumber.
>
>My neighbour wouldn't leave the house one day when a body was discovered
>on a nearby playing field. "I'm not driving past a dead body!" she
>said.
I hope that her journey to work doesn't take her past a cemetary or
>> house where a murder has taken place. Presumably there is usually an
>> assumption that nobody wants to live there, especially if there might
>> be some body parts under floorboards, to be found one day by an
>> electrician or plumber.
>
>My neighbour wouldn't leave the house one day when a body was discovered
>on a nearby playing field. "I'm not driving past a dead body!" she
>said.
crematorium, then, or even any church or chapel where funerals are commonly
held. Not to mention hospitals and care homes, which not infrequently (for
obvious reasons) contain dead bodies.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Janet
Feb 5, 2014, 7:18:29 PM2/5/14
to
In article <j7b5f9h9pj6vfb5ec...@news.markshouse.net>,
use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk says...
up, still dripping blood, oh the horror. Or vets (dead pets, boo hoo).
Janet.
use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk says...
>
> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 21:22:11 +0000, Walt put finger to keyboard and typed:
>
> >The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in
> >news:blegan...@mid.individual.net:
> >>
> >> I have sometimes idly wondered whose decision it is to demolish a
> >> house where a murder has taken place. Presumably there is usually an
> >> assumption that nobody wants to live there, especially if there might
> >> be some body parts under floorboards, to be found one day by an
> >> electrician or plumber.
> >
> >My neighbour wouldn't leave the house one day when a body was discovered
> >on a nearby playing field. "I'm not driving past a dead body!" she
> >said.
>
> I hope that her journey to work doesn't take her past a cemetary or
> crematorium, then, or even any church or chapel where funerals are commonly
> held. Not to mention hospitals and care homes, which not infrequently (for
> obvious reasons) contain dead bodies.
Not to mention butcher shops.. bloody corpses eviscerated and hacked
> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 21:22:11 +0000, Walt put finger to keyboard and typed:
>
> >The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in
> >news:blegan...@mid.individual.net:
> >>
> >> I have sometimes idly wondered whose decision it is to demolish a
> >> house where a murder has taken place. Presumably there is usually an
> >> assumption that nobody wants to live there, especially if there might
> >> be some body parts under floorboards, to be found one day by an
> >> electrician or plumber.
> >
> >My neighbour wouldn't leave the house one day when a body was discovered
> >on a nearby playing field. "I'm not driving past a dead body!" she
> >said.
>
> I hope that her journey to work doesn't take her past a cemetary or
> crematorium, then, or even any church or chapel where funerals are commonly
> held. Not to mention hospitals and care homes, which not infrequently (for
> obvious reasons) contain dead bodies.
up, still dripping blood, oh the horror. Or vets (dead pets, boo hoo).
Janet.
Adam Funk
Feb 6, 2014, 10:00:08 AM2/6/14
to
On 2014-02-05, The Todal wrote:
> I have sometimes idly wondered whose decision it is to demolish a house
> where a murder has taken place. Presumably there is usually an
> assumption that nobody wants to live there, especially if there might be
> some body parts under floorboards, to be found one day by an electrician
> or plumber.
Hmm, it looks like this house used to have a sherry cellar that's been
> I have sometimes idly wondered whose decision it is to demolish a house
> where a murder has taken place. Presumably there is usually an
> assumption that nobody wants to live there, especially if there might be
> some body parts under floorboards, to be found one day by an electrician
> or plumber.
bricked up.
Nick Odell
Feb 7, 2014, 7:02:55 PM2/7/14
to
In a particularly gruesome local case[1] the police spent four days
searching the house from top to bottom. Despite one of the reasons
given by the wife for leaving the house being "the terrible smell in
the cellar" it took a second, two-day-long search to locate the body.
Nick
[1]I lived opposite at the time [2]
[2]I woke up that morning and without my glasses, I thought the
neighbours were preparing for a party. Once I had put my glasses on I
could see that the gazebo was really a forensic quarantine tent and
the bunting was 'police do not cross' tape
0 new messages