Light fittings when selling a house

[nos...@thanks.com]

We're close to Exchange on a house and the vendors want to take the
light fittings in two rooms and a corridor. One room only has wall
lights and the other has a central ceiling light plus wall lights; the
corridor has ceiling lights. The vendor is proposing to replace the
central ceiling light with a flex and bulb holder, similarly one of the
corridor ceiling lights, but just to put terminal blocks on wires where
the wall lights were fitted. This leaves one room with no light fittings
and (I would imagine) choc block type strips everywhere else.
Is this legally acceptable?

[Roland Perry]

In message <elh9uf...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:29:52 on Sun, 16
Apr 2017, nos...@thanks.com remarked:

If they've told you in advance, then there shouldn't be a problem.

I have taken specified wall lights with me, and also left specified
rather expensive chandeliers that I knew would not fit in my new home,
but many people would swap for a bare bulb "because they can".
--
Roland Perry

[Andy Burns]

nos...@thanks.com wrote:

> We're close to Exchange on a house and the vendors want to take the

> light fittings in two rooms and a corridor. This leaves one room with

> no light fittings and (I would imagine) choc block type strips
> everywhere else. Is this legally acceptable?

The Law Society's template fixtures and contents form says

"if the seller removes a light fitting, it is assumed that the
seller will replace the fitting with a ceiling rose, a flex,
bulb holder and bulb and that they will be left in a safe
condition"

How you'd interpret that for a wall light, I'm not sure, I think
technically the choc-block should be in an enclosure, maybe you'd prefer
them to install cheap batten lamp holders?

[GB]

I suggest that you negotiate for what you want prior to exchange of
contracts. In many cases, the light fittings are significantly less
valuable than the cost of an electrician to fit them. So, some tiny
extra payment ought to work out okay for both parties.

[Tim Jackson]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:08:53 +0100, Andy Burns wrote...

> The Law Society's template fixtures and contents form says
>
> "if the seller removes a light fitting, it is assumed that the
> seller will replace the fitting with a ceiling rose, a flex,
> bulb holder and bulb and that they will be left in a safe
> condition"
>
> How you'd interpret that for a wall light, I'm not sure, I think
> technically the choc-block should be in an enclosure, maybe you'd prefer
> them to install cheap batten lamp holders?

The day you move in to a new house is typically fraught with a hundred
and one different things to do. You don't want one of them to be
fitting new light fittings as darkness draws in to a room which doesn't
have any. Installing cheap batten lamp holders is no more difficult
than the ceiling roses they are already offering. They just haven't
thought it through. Go back and ask.

--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[GB]

On 16/04/2017 18:34, Tim Jackson wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:08:53 +0100, Andy Burns wrote...
>
>> The Law Society's template fixtures and contents form says
>>
>> "if the seller removes a light fitting, it is assumed that the
>> seller will replace the fitting with a ceiling rose, a flex,
>> bulb holder and bulb and that they will be left in a safe
>> condition"
>>
>> How you'd interpret that for a wall light, I'm not sure, I think
>> technically the choc-block should be in an enclosure, maybe you'd prefer
>> them to install cheap batten lamp holders?
>
> The day you move in to a new house is typically fraught with a hundred
> and one different things to do. You don't want one of them to be
> fitting new light fittings as darkness draws in to a room which doesn't
> have any. Installing cheap batten lamp holders is no more difficult
> than the ceiling roses they are already offering. They just haven't
> thought it through. Go back and ask.
>

Or supply some fitting and ask the seller to install those?

[Norman Wells]

On 16/04/2017 14:29, nos...@thanks.com wrote:

Not without your agreement. Both sides are entitled to know what is
included in the transaction and what isn't, and 'fixtures' normally form
part of the deal. If you're unhappy with what is proposed, you don't
exchange contracts but sort it all out first, including a reduction in
the price if necessary.

[Brian]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 15:32:23 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <elh9uf...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:29:52 on Sun, 16
>Apr 2017, nos...@thanks.com remarked:
>>We're close to Exchange on a house and the vendors want to take the
>>light fittings in two rooms and a corridor. One room only has wall
>>lights and the other has a central ceiling light plus wall lights; the
>>corridor has ceiling lights. The vendor is proposing to replace the
>>central ceiling light with a flex and bulb holder, similarly one of the
>>corridor ceiling lights, but just to put terminal blocks on wires where
>>the wall lights were fitted. This leaves one room with no light
>>fittings and (I would imagine) choc block type strips everywhere else.
>>Is this legally acceptable?
>
>If they've told you in advance, then there shouldn't be a problem.

Well... see below.

>
>I have taken specified wall lights with me, and also left specified
>rather expensive chandeliers that I knew would not fit in my new home,
>but many people would swap for a bare bulb "because they can".

About 30 years ago, my parents bought a large, architect-designed
detached house from the couple for whom it had been built. We knew
from the property enquiry form that the vendors were not intending to
leave any of the shades or diffusers, which in any event were of
Woolworth's-best level of quality and in execrable taste. However, it
did come as something of a surprise on moving-in day to discover that
not a single light bulb had been left anywhere in the property.

Going back to the OP's problem, in my view, if the fittings are
removed and the bare ends terminated on choc blocks with nothing
else, the resulting installation would not be compliant with BS7671 on
the basis that the exposed wiring was inadequately protected against
mechanical damage. However, except in Scotland I believe, it is not a
legal requirement to comply with the British Standard.

I am curious, however, as to how the sales negotiations can have
proceeded to the point of exchange with the problem still unresolved.
If the issue has only just arisen ("Oh, and by the way...") I should
have thought that the initial response might be for the OP's solicitor
to suggest to the vendor's solicitor that the window of opportunity
has long-since closed, and that a dim view is taken of the vendor's
rather clumsy attempt at brinkmanship.

(I am not a lawyer but I am an Electrical Engineer).
Remove .2001 to reply by email. I apologise for the inconvenience.

[PLC]

This is a sign of small minded people who think saving a few quid is
worth prejudicing a £250,000 sale. Also make sure they don't try
removing other things like mdoor knobs or the light bulbs. I kid you not!


--
Peter

Reply address is valid

[R. Mark Clayton]

Normally anything screwed down is a fixture and fitting. You can agree to the sellers taking them.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

The cost of light fittings compared to the cost of a house is negligible. So I don't understand anyone removing them (unless they have sentimental value), and I don't understand you caring. Just buy some in B&Q.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Can't help with your question, but:
The vendor of our last house took the toilet seat! It was nothing special,
but the wife was not very pleased.
A week or so later a policeman called round. He was investigating quite a
few motoring offenses allegedly committed by the previous owner and did not
know his new address.
I did :-)

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Politely snipped, to make life easier.

I once knew a man and wife who were going through quite a nasty divorce. He
got the house after paying her off.
When he moved back in she had taken every single light bulb, but had left
the shades etc.

[Roland Perry]

In message <4i67fc9l5dn55q052...@4ax.com>, at 17:43:17 on
Sun, 16 Apr 2017, Brian <Br...@2001.bjforster.force9.co.uk> remarked:

>>If they've told you in advance, then there shouldn't be a problem.
>
>Well... see below.

Perhaps the issue here is not sufficient advance warning?

>>I have taken specified wall lights with me, and also left specified
>>rather expensive chandeliers that I knew would not fit in my new home,
>>but many people would swap for a bare bulb "because they can".
>
>About 30 years ago, my parents bought a large, architect-designed
>detached house from the couple for whom it had been built. We knew
>from the property enquiry form

That's the place for such information.

>that the vendors were not intending to leave any of the shades or
>diffusers, which in any event were of Woolworth's-best level of quality
>and in execrable taste. However, it did come as something of a
>surprise on moving-in day to discover that not a single light bulb had
>been left anywhere in the property.

A slightly different issue. Perhaps the difference between a fixture and
a fitting? This is the Daily Telegraph's view (posted to stimulate
debate rather than as a definitive list):

Fixtures: Fitted bathroom furniture, including sinks, baths and
lavatories; fitted kitchens and integral white goods; fitted
wardrobes and shelves; light fittings; boilers and radiators;
gas fires; garden plants and built-in barbecues; sheds with
foundations

Fittings: Carpets, lampshades and light bulbs; curtains and
curtain rails; TV aerials and satellite dishes; mirrors screwed
to the wall; free-standing ovens, freezers, washing machines,
spin-dryers and dishwashers; garden statuary; sheds without
foundations.

Although they also say that the buyer should also ensure that fixtures
are mentioned in the contract.

Long ago a solicitor doing my conveyancing perhaps over-egged it when he
said that as a buyer unless specified you should expect to be buying the
land, and anything which happened to be on it. Which includes no better
than whatever shell of a house the vendor leaves behind.

At the other extreme, I haven't bought or sold a house ever (I think the
current total is nine) where "curtains and carpets" weren't a discussion
point from the first viewing onwards, nor has anyone expected that
freestanding kitchen appliances were included. On the other hand, all
aerials and sheds were implicitly included - and I have no idea what
constitutes a "shed foundation". Is that a concrete slab rather than
loose paving/brickwork, or does it involve the shed being somehow
attached to the said "base"?

>Going back to the OP's problem, in my view, if the fittings are
>removed and the bare ends terminated on choc blocks with nothing
>else,

It's not an unusual way for wall light wiring to be terminated, both by
vendors and builders. My own inclination (as a vendor) would be to buy
the cheapest possible $10 wall light (they'll be replaced in the medium
term by the buyer, presumably) and fit those; it would hardly take
longer than wiring a choc-block - indeed they'll probably have a
chock-block inside. If only so I and the removal men can see around the
house on moving-out day!

>the resulting installation would not be compliant with BS7671 on
>the basis that the exposed wiring was inadequately protected against
>mechanical damage. However, except in Scotland I believe, it is not a
>legal requirement to comply with the British Standard.

Does that legal requirement apply to owner/occupier sales as well as
sales by builders?

>I am curious, however, as to how the sales negotiations can have
>proceeded to the point of exchange with the problem still unresolved.
>If the issue has only just arisen ("Oh, and by the way...") I should
>have thought that the initial response might be for the OP's solicitor
>to suggest to the vendor's solicitor that the window of opportunity

>has long-since closed, and that a dim view is taken.

We need to know if 'fixtures' are mentioned at all in the contract.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <K4udnVX4vMPICG7F...@brightview.co.uk>, at
17:01:25 on Sun, 16 Apr 2017, PLC <g6...@iyahoo.co.uk> remarked:

>> How you'd interpret that for a wall light, I'm not sure, I think
>> technically the choc-block should be in an enclosure, maybe you'd prefer
>> them to install cheap batten lamp holders?
>
>This is a sign of small minded people who think saving a few quid is
>worth prejudicing a £250,000 sale. Also make sure they don't try
>removing other things like mdoor knobs or the light bulbs. I kid you not!

It's can also be a sign that a vendor has been knocked down in price, or
messed about by the buyer, to the point they exasperated enough to
remove anything that might have a use in their new home.

Having just bought some solid brass door fittings in a clearance sale at
a local family run hardware store (they are unsurprisingly downsizing
their DIY stuff now there's increasing competition from the sheds) and
the original prices were well into the £30's per pair.
--
Roland Perry

[Martin Brown]

On 16/04/2017 15:37, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 16/04/2017 14:29, nos...@thanks.com wrote:
>
>> We're close to Exchange on a house and the vendors want to take the
>> light fittings in two rooms and a corridor. One room only has wall
>> lights and the other has a central ceiling light plus wall lights; the
>> corridor has ceiling lights. The vendor is proposing to replace the
>> central ceiling light with a flex and bulb holder, similarly one of the
>> corridor ceiling lights, but just to put terminal blocks on wires where
>> the wall lights were fitted. This leaves one room with no light fittings
>> and (I would imagine) choc block type strips everywhere else.
>> Is this legally acceptable?

In the general scheme of things unless they are exceptionally pleasing
lights that you really want then it is noise. You should ask them to
make safe the terminal blocks though - leaving dangling wires isn't
good. Also on taking over a new house you should check or have checked
for you that the lighting circuits and mains rings are as described on
the fuse box and that none have been cross linked by muppets/DIYers.

I found some wall lights on the ring main and a lighting circuit
paralleled up with the ring main as a side effect once!

> Not without your agreement. Both sides are entitled to know what is
> included in the transaction and what isn't, and 'fixtures' normally form
> part of the deal. If you're unhappy with what is proposed, you don't
> exchange contracts but sort it all out first, including a reduction in
> the price if necessary.

I always found it odd that carpets were not usually a part of the deal
when buying a house and subject to additional negotiations. They are
after all nailed down hard to the floor, bulky and quite hard to remove.

Our first ever house the carpets looked pretty bad so we chose not to
buy them which meant that the owner duly removed them - helpful as it
turned out since we found no end of serious floor problems upstairs that
might have lain undiscovered otherwise.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Davey]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:13:51 +0100
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> I always found it odd that carpets were not usually a part of the
> deal when buying a house and subject to additional negotiations. They
> are after all nailed down hard to the floor, bulky and quite hard to
> remove.
>
> Our first ever house the carpets looked pretty bad so we chose not to
> buy them which meant that the owner duly removed them - helpful as it
> turned out since we found no end of serious floor problems upstairs
> that might have lain undiscovered otherwise.

Could the seller not have chosen to leave them in place, both to save
him work, and because they would have been of no use anywhere else?
Then the problems would still have lain undiscovered until such time as
you fell through the floor later.

--
Davey.

[Rob Morley]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:13:51 +0100
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Our first ever house the carpets looked pretty bad so we chose not to
> buy them which meant that the owner duly removed them - helpful as it
> turned out since we found no end of serious floor problems upstairs
> that might have lain undiscovered otherwise.

I'd have thought your surveyor should have found the problem, carpets
or no carpets.

[Roland Perry]

In message <od1tg1$p43$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:13:51 on Mon, 17 Apr
2017, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>I always found it odd that carpets were not usually a part of the deal
>when buying a house and subject to additional negotiations. They are
>after all nailed down hard to the floor,

I suspect you mean "fitted carpets" and they aren't so much nailed down
as held by industrial strength metal 'velcro'.

Back in the day (and I'm old enough to remember this) carpets were
almost always fitted as little as curtains. If you like, call them
room-sized rugs. With a two foot border [usually painted or varnished
floorboards] between them and the walls.

The state of the law here should be viewed through a lens of technology
neutrality: why are carpets which happen to be the same size as the room
be different from ones which aren't?

>bulky and quite hard to remove.

Removal men can roll up (and transport) a carpet easily.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <20170417132204.72b65666@Mars>, at 13:22:04 on Mon, 17 Apr
2017, Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> remarked:

>> Our first ever house the carpets looked pretty bad so we chose not to
>> buy them which meant that the owner duly removed them - helpful as it
>> turned out since we found no end of serious floor problems upstairs
>> that might have lain undiscovered otherwise.
>
>I'd have thought your surveyor should have found the problem, carpets
>or no carpets.

Adding some legal content - one of the main bones of contention with
surveyors is whether or not they fell entitled (or indeed commissioned)
to lift carpets.
--
Roland Perry

[Caecilius]

Botham v TSB Bank [1996] EWCA Civ 549 established some of the common
law on what is and what is not a fixture. I don't know if it's been
changed by recent statute though.

In this case, the appeal court held that fitted carpets attached with
grippers were not fixtures. I think the reasoning was that they could
be easily removed without damaging either the carpet or the building,
rolled up and transported.

[Roland Perry]

In message <dks9fc95gm013rtte...@4ax.com>, at 17:55:06 on
Mon, 17 Apr 2017, Caecilius <nos...@spamless.invalid> remarked:

>Botham v TSB Bank [1996] EWCA Civ 549 established some of the common
>law on what is and what is not a fixture. I don't know if it's been
>changed by recent statute though.
>
>In this case, the appeal court held that fitted carpets attached with
>grippers were not fixtures. I think the reasoning was that they could
>be easily removed without damaging either the carpet or the building,
>rolled up and transported.

Attached "only with grippers" perhaps? The most recent carpet I laid has
grippers at the doorways (and because it's a hall carpet that's perhaps
three-quarters of the edge) but elsewhere it's glued.
--
Roland Perry

[Martin Brown]

ROFL. I have found surveyors reports on properties even the most
detailed ones worse than useless. They count the number of rooms and
doors and do the most trivial tests they can get away with - worthless.
ISTR that one didn't even look in the loft space at all.

Our first house was also the one where our solicitors failed to spot
that it did not have proper planning permission for alterations made.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Martin Brown]

On 17/04/2017 12:49, Davey wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:13:51 +0100
> Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I always found it odd that carpets were not usually a part of the
>> deal when buying a house and subject to additional negotiations. They
>> are after all nailed down hard to the floor, bulky and quite hard to
>> remove.
>>
>> Our first ever house the carpets looked pretty bad so we chose not to
>> buy them which meant that the owner duly removed them - helpful as it
>> turned out since we found no end of serious floor problems upstairs
>> that might have lain undiscovered otherwise.
>
> Could the seller not have chosen to leave them in place, both to save
> him work, and because they would have been of no use anywhere else?

They could have done but they weren't smart enough for that.

> Then the problems would still have lain undiscovered until such time as
> you fell through the floor later.

The carpet put up enough resistance that the floor just sagged a bit if
you hit the wrong spot. They only took the crapet with them but left the
old underfelt loose to hide their sins. However it was then obvious
something was badly wrong with loose and missing floorboards with a
couple of inches vertical movement and water pipes underneath.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Handsome Jack]

Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> posted

>ROFL. I have found surveyors reports on properties even the most
>detailed ones worse than useless. They count the number of rooms and
>doors and do the most trivial tests they can get away with - worthless.
>ISTR that one didn't even look in the loft space at all.
>
>Our first house was also the one where our solicitors failed to spot
>that it did not have proper planning permission for alterations made.

And did any problems emerge from that? Genuine problems I mean, not
solicitors' teeth-sucking.

--
Jack

[Neil Williams]

On 2017-04-18 09:02:40 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> Attached "only with grippers" perhaps? The most recent carpet I laid
> has grippers at the doorways (and because it's a hall carpet that's
> perhaps three-quarters of the edge) but elsewhere it's glued.

Mine are only glued on the stairs, I think that's usual practice
because of the higher risk of injury if it slips. The rest are on
grippers.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

[Davey]

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 09:43:39 +0100
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > Could the seller not have chosen to leave them in place, both to
> > save him work, and because they would have been of no use anywhere
> > else?
>
> They could have done but they weren't smart enough for that.

Oh dear!

>
> > Then the problems would still have lain undiscovered until such
> > time as you fell through the floor later.
>
> The carpet put up enough resistance that the floor just sagged a bit
> if you hit the wrong spot. They only took the crapet with them but
> left the old underfelt loose to hide their sins. However it was then
> obvious something was badly wrong with loose and missing floorboards
> with a couple of inches vertical movement and water pipes underneath.

Yeah, that will point up a problem. Worst is when the pipes stop the
floorboards from falling any further.

--
Davey.

[RobertL]

He might care because it might be a 'test'. The seller might be thinking of raising the price just before exchange and is doing this to test the repsonse.

Robert

[Martin Brown]

On 18/04/2017 11:08, Handsome Jack wrote:
> Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> posted

>> Our first house was also the one where our solicitors failed to spot
>> that it did not have proper planning permission for alterations made.
>
> And did any problems emerge from that? Genuine problems I mean, not
> solicitors' teeth-sucking.

It required sorting out to be able to sell the property when the time
came. Fortunately it was a company move and they paid solicitors fees.
It lost the first buyer, delayed completion and made it a lot more
stressful than if the first lot of solicitors done their job properly.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Handsome Jack]

Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> posted
>On 18/04/2017 11:08, Handsome Jack wrote:
>> Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> posted
>
>>> Our first house was also the one where our solicitors failed to spot
>>> that it did not have proper planning permission for alterations made.
>>
>> And did any problems emerge from that? Genuine problems I mean, not
>> solicitors' teeth-sucking.
>
>It required sorting out to be able to sell the property when the time
>came. Fortunately it was a company move and they paid solicitors fees.
>It lost the first buyer, delayed completion and made it a lot more
>stressful than if the first lot of solicitors done their job properly.

That's precisely what I mean by solicitors' teeth-sucking. No
enforcement action was threatened or taken under TCPA. The only reason
it caused problems was because the buyers' solicitors chose to make it
so.

--
Jack

[Rob Morley]

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 09:44:01 +0100
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> On 17/04/2017 13:22, Rob Morley wrote:

> > I'd have thought your surveyor should have found the problem,
> > carpets or no carpets.
>
> ROFL. I have found surveyors reports on properties even the most
> detailed ones worse than useless. They count the number of rooms and
> doors and do the most trivial tests they can get away with -
> worthless. ISTR that one didn't even look in the loft space at all.
>

I assumed the trivial tests might include walking around each room
bouncing on accessible bits of floor, lifting the edge of carpets,
checking door gaps and floor levels by eye (or perhaps by LASER as
we've been in the 21st century for a while now).