Damp due to badly fitted windows

emmamc1982

House purchased in Oct 2017. Survey highlighted possible damp around windows at the front of the house. Requested my solicitor to raise this with vendor. Vendor inspected house and denied this via his solicitor by fax. Fast forward to now and yes indeed issues due to badly fitted windows, confirmed by builder and window repair company. Just curious if there is any recourse to the vendor on this? If not fair enough but genuinely curious.

nuac

Mod
Legal advice against forum rules, but leaving open for general discussion subject to that

Victor

New build or existing?

Note that in the sale of property, that it is only the contract that matters, any advertising, letters, notes or faxes are essentially meaningless.

If it is a new building, it will need to comply with building regulations and may be subject to Homebond or similar.

Have you raised this with your solicitor?

NUTLEY BOY

Unkind though it may sound the principle of caveat emptor applies to the purchase of second hand houses.

It is ironical that a pre-purchase survey identifies a problem.
It is no surprise that a vendor denies any problem.
I suspect that a vendor's mere denial of damp would not be actionable.
A vendor could say that they were not aware of any problem and that they are not technical experts so their answer is true within the boundaries of their knowledge and not a warranty :rolleyes:.

It might be a different argument if a representation by a vendor was deliberately misleading.
Proof of a fraudulent misrepresentation would be very difficult to establish.
It might be a different issue if a vendor gave an intending purchaser a technical architect's/surveyor's report that deliberately misrepresented the situation.

Against this there is the serious impediment raised by Victor about what evidence can be adduced in a contract dispute.

The question of action against other parties [apart from the vendor] arises ;

The surveyor actually identified the problem.
That would suggest the presence of professional competence.
Was the vendor's reply shown to the surveyor for further observations ?

Is a solicitor handling such a transaction for a purchaser negligent in allowing a client to complete a purchase if a particular issue is not resolved adequately ?

At a practical level any money to be expended on potential legal remedies might be better assigned to those pesky windows.

emmamc1982

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Unkind though it may sound the principle of caveat emptor applies to the purchase of second hand houses.

It is ironical that a pre-purchase survey identifies a problem.
It is no surprise that a vendor denies any problem.
I suspect that a vendor's mere denial of damp would not be actionable.
A vendor could say that they were not aware of any problem and that they are not technical experts so their answer is true within the boundaries of their knowledge and not a warranty :rolleyes:.

It might be a different argument if a representation by a vendor was deliberately misleading.
Proof of a fraudulent misrepresentation would be very difficult to establish.
It might be a different issue if a vendor gave an intending purchaser a technical architect's/surveyor's report that deliberately misrepresented the situation.

Against this there is the serious impediment raised by Victor about what evidence can be adduced in a contract dispute.

The question of action against other parties [apart from the vendor] arises ;

The surveyor actually identified the problem.
That would suggest the presence of professional competence.
Was the vendor's reply shown to the surveyor for further observations ?

Is a solicitor handling such a transaction for a purchaser negligent in allowing a client to complete a purchase if a particular issue is not resolved adequately ?

At a practical level any money to be expended on potential legal remedies might be better assigned to those pesky windows.

Cheers for the detailed response. Was thinking it was a case of buyer beware.