new house no paperwork

[IJWS15]

Bear in mind I did say

if the EICR uncovers any horrors...

Indeed you did - but also bear in mind that it was not you to whom I was responding (or quoting) when I entered this discussion. If you look, you'll see that I was responding to ISWS15's apparent suggestion that one could/should 'go after them' simply because of the (possibly) incorrectly answered question. I say 'possibly' because, as we've been discussing, if the question actually did relate to 1/1/2005 (which I strongly suspect it did), then the presence of 'new' cable colours does not even prove that the answer was incorrect.

Kind Regards, John.

I was thinking along the same lies as BAS, if a test indicates wiring which does not comply with the regs and the buyer has to correct it before he can let out the property then there are costs incurred.

If the answer had been "yes" then the buyer may have commissioned a test before buying and taken the results into account when agreeing the price - we will never really know, but in answering "no" them the seller has misled the buyer. The outcome depends on whether the property is compliant or not.

 

[seasickstevie]

I was thinking along the same lies as BAS . . .

Fraudian slip ?

How very dare you

 

[JohnW2]

I was thinking along the same lies as BAS, if a test indicates wiring which does not comply with the regs and the buyer has to correct it before he can let out the property then there are costs incurred. If the answer had been "yes" then the buyer may have commissioned a test before buying and taken the results into account when agreeing the price - we will never really know, but in answering "no" them the seller has misled the buyer. The outcome depends on whether the property is compliant or not.

As you say, everything depends upon what the state of the electrical installation actually was - so one can't generalise and say that there would be a case for 'going after them' simply because they had answered the question incorrectly. If the installation was fine, then there would be no pecuniary loss as a result of the incorrect answer, hence no case in law to seek any damages.

Even in the situation you postulate, there would be no 'actual' pecuniary loss (the remedial work would have to have been done, regardless of the answer to the question) - one would have to try to convince a court that, had the question been answered correctly, one would have been able to successfully negotiate a lower price for the property, and that could be an uphill struggle, particularly if the vendor insisted that there was no way that (s)he was going to agree to a lower price.

Also, underlying this whole discussion is the belief that 'undisclosed' electrical work in recent years is likely to increase the potential need for remedial work. Whilst there will obvioulsy be some cases in which that is true, I would imagine that in the majority of cases, the opposite would be the case - it's the electrical installation which hasn't been touched for many years (with a truthful 'no' answer to that question) which may well lead to the greatest remedial costs!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Even in the situation you postulate, there would be no 'actual' pecuniary loss (the remedial work would have to have been done, regardless of the answer to the question) - one would have to try to convince a court that, had the question been answered correctly, one would have been able to successfully negotiate a lower price for the property, and that could be an uphill struggle, particularly if the vendor insisted that there was no way that (s)he was going to agree to a lower price.

In which case you swear that you would not have gone ahead with the transaction, and all of a sudden it's a case of the seller misrepresenting a material fact to trick you into spending £X00,000.

Basically that's fraud.

 

[stillp]

Basically that's fraud.

And swearing you wouldn't have gone ahead with the transaction isn't?

 

[JohnW2]

In which case you swear that you would not have gone ahead with the transaction, and all of a sudden it's a case of the seller misrepresenting a material fact to trick you into spending £X00,000. Basically that's fraud.

I imagine that it would only be fraud if it could be demonstrated that the 'misrepresentation' was deliberate and with the intent you suggest.

I strongly suspect that the only winners would be the lawyers!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Of course not.

You didn't know that there was remedial work needed, so you never had to discuss the financial implications with the seller. But now that you are aware of the problems you are quite sure that had you discussed it and he had been intransigent, you would not have gone ahead.

 

[stillp]

Of course not.

You didn't know that there was remedial work needed, so you never had to discuss the financial implications with the seller. But now that you are aware of the problems you are quite sure that had you discussed it and he had been intransigent, you would not have gone ahead.

If you truly would not have gone ahead with the transaction, then you're right, it would not be a deception and hence not fraudulent. If however (as someone suggested earlier) you would have bought the house anyway, then claiming you would not have is an attempt to obtain a pecuniary advantage by deception.

 

[gasman1987]

Thank you for the replys, i have been working away so thats why i'm on here now.

The cost implecations don't really matter to much, i was going into the purchase with the intention of a rewire anyways. my main concern is my tenants safety and covering myself with paperwork. I am glad that the work has been carried out but my only concern was the paperwork. visually the work looks sound but i just want a competent person to undertake the correct checks

What maid me laugh about my purchase is the only thing my solicitor cared about was the FENSA certificate, Nether the electrical / gas certs was required

 

[SimonH2]

My main concern is my tenants safety and covering myself with paperwork. I am glad that the work has been carried out but my only concern was the paperwork. visually the work looks sound but i just want a competent person to undertake the correct checks

As said, get yourself an EICR - it'll put your mind at rest, and should the brown stuff hit the fan then you've got a defence of due diligence and evidence that the installation was up to standard before it was let.

What maid me laugh about my purchase is the only thing my solicitor cared about was the FENSA certificate, Nether the electrical / gas certs was required

Yes, they only care about certain bits of paperwork. Presumably it's had new windows (since some certain date), and so should come with some paperwork for it. Electrical/gas certs are not a legal requirement and so they don't care - your mortgage lender may have other ideas, as may your insurer, and of course for renting then by law you need the gas cert (and a service contract on the boiler IIRC).

it will be interesting to see what happens in a few years. It's one thing if only the seller has owned the house since the various dates, but when it gets to 2, 3, or more owners, then many of the answers will be "don't know"* and then the process collapses.

* Saying "no" because you haven't done any, and the previous seller said "no" doesn't (in my opinion) cut it. You have to sign that form as true and correct, and you can't know that for sure about any previous answers and so the only truthful answer is "don't know".

 

[nanuuk]

As said, get yourself an EICR - it'll put your mind at rest.

I got one of these done, also for letting a property. It was required by the estate agent. The spark was very keen to get the job done, and inspite of me suggesting I move some furniture so he could get to all the sockets told me it really wasn't necessary, and that he'd simply mark those sockets as inaccessible on the forms. I forwarded the completed forms to the estate agent pointing this out and she told me that was perfect, just what they needed.

As far as I could see, one of those 'inaccessible' sockets could have fallen off the wall when you touched it, as long as it completed the ring circuit all his tests would pass, so my advice is to keep a close eye on exactly how the test is conducted, at least if you care about whoever's in the property. Bit different if you're just covering your a*se I suppose.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I imagine that it would only be fraud if it could be demonstrated that the 'misrepresentation' was deliberate and with the intent you suggest.

Err...

If you say "no" to a question to which you know the answer is "yes" then there's little room to argue that the misrepresentation was anything other than deliberate.

I strongly suspect that the only winners would be the lawyers!

True, but my instinct would be to get the nastiest rottweiler of a lawyer I could and drive the seller who lied to me into the ground.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

* Saying "no" because you haven't done any, and the previous seller said "no" doesn't (in my opinion) cut it. You have to sign that form as true and correct, and you can't know that for sure about any previous answers and so the only truthful answer is "don't know".

Is the question "have you carried out any work" or is it "has any work been done"?

 

[JohnW2]

Is the question "have you carried out any work" or is it "has any work been done"?

From Form TA6....

Have any of the following changes been made to the whole or any part of the property (including the garden)? If Yes, in what year were the changes made?
(a) ... (b) ... (c) ...
(d) Electrical work since 1 January 2005

No mention of "you" having undertaken/commissioned the work. Also note the word 'changes' in the pre-amble, which I guess could keep the lawyers in work for a good while

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I imagine that it would only be fraud if it could be demonstrated that the 'misrepresentation' was deliberate and with the intent you suggest.

Err... If you say "no" to a question to which you know the answer is "yes" then there's little room to argue that the misrepresentation was anything other than deliberate.

Yes, the 'deliberate' part is usually not going to be in doubt (although the 'changes' word in the TA6 question may confuse some people into giving a misleading 'no' answer). It's the 'intent' bit which is far more important. I suspect that by far the most common reason for an unthrithful 'no' answer is a perceived fear on the part of the vendor that a 'yes' answer might get them in trouble for non-notification/non-approval, not a deliberate attempt to influce the buyer - but it's the latter that would presumably have to be proven for it to be the sort of fraud you suggested.

Kind Regards, John.