are auction contracts categorically infallible

Lenar3556

Mad_maxx wrote: »

For safety reasons, a conversion to a bedroom in the attic must be certfied

Do you doubt this?

I must admit, I did hear this in a pub one night. So that’s good enough for me.

Peregrinus

Mad_maxx wrote: »

For safety reasons, a conversion to a bedroom in the attic must be certfied

Do you doubt this?

This is wrong.

For safety reasons, a conversion to a bedroom in an attic must be done in compliance with the Building Regulations.

If the work complies with the Building Regulations, then the bedroom is a safe as the Building Regulations make it.

But signing a certificate doesn't make it any more safe. And failing to sign a certificate doesn't make it less safe. The certificate doesn't affect safety at all; it just affects your knowledge of the safety of the bedroom.

The claim that an attic conversion can't be listed as a bedroom unless compliant with Building Regulations is a different claim, though. That claim is there is a law out there regulating the contents of house listings, and that it includes a provision that, if an attic conversion isn't certified, it can't be listed as a bedroom. (Or, possibly, that if it hasn't been done in compliance with building regulations, it can't be listed as a bedroom.)

That's the law that we are asking you, again and again and again, to point to. And that's the law that, again and again and again, you are failing to point to. Which makes us suspect that, though you plainly devoutly believe that the law exists, you have never seen it and have not been able to find it. Which leaves us with the suspicion that it may not exist at all. A suspicion that will only be intensified if you continue to post claiming that such a law exists, but not citing or linking to the law.

Mad_maxx

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is wrong.

For safety reasons, a conversion to a bedroom in an attic must be done in compliance with the Building Regulations.

If the work complies with the Building Regulations, then the bedroom is a safe as the Building Regulations make it.

But signing a certificate doesn't make it any more safe. And failing to sign a certificate doesn't make it less safe. The certificate doesn't affect safety at all; it just affects your knowledge of the safety of the bedroom.

The claim that an attic conversion can't be listed as a bedroom unless compliant with Building Regulations is a different claim, though. That claim is there is a law out there regulating the contents of house listings, and that it includes a provision that, if an attic conversion isn't certified, it can't be listed as a bedroom. (Or, possibly, that if it hasn't been done in compliance with building regulations, it can't be listed as a bedroom.)

That's the law that we are asking you, again and again and again, to point to. And that's the law that, again and again and again, you are failing to point to. Which makes us suspect that, though you plainly devoutly believe that the law exists, you have never seen it and have not been able to find it. Which leaves us with the suspicion that it may not exist at all. A suspicion that will only be intensified if you continue to post claiming that such a law exists, but not citing or linking to the law.

If it's not necessary to have a conversion certified by an engineer as you claim? , who decides that it complies with fire regs etc? ,how come insurance companies won't cover a bedroom in the attic if it's not certified?

Peregrinus

Mad_maxx wrote: »

If it's not necessary to have a conversion certified by an engineer as you claim? , who decides that it complies with fire regs etc? ,how come insurance companies won't cover a bedroom in the attic if it's not certified?

I didn't say it's not necessary to have it certified. I said the question of whether it's safe depends on whether it was constructed in compliance with building regulations. The question of whether we know it's safe, which is a different question, may be affected by the availability of a certificate.

Obviously, you would prefer to have a certificate; various practical difficulties are presented if you don't have one. But that's a separate question from whether this is a bedroom, which is a question answered by looking at its function, or from whether it can be described as a bedroom in marketing literature, which is a question answered by looking at the regulations (if any) which control what can and cannot be said in marketing literature.

Presumably, it would have been evident to anyone inspecting the documentation package offered in conjunction with the auction that no certificate of compliance was being offered. That might affect whether someone is willing to bid for the property, or what amount they are prepared to bid. But the unavailability of a certificate of compliance is common enough, particularly in sales by receivers or mortgagees in possession, and such houses do sell, so there are obviously people willing to buy them.

Lenar3556

Mad_maxx wrote: »

If it's not necessary to have a conversion certified by an engineer as you claim? , who decides that it complies with fire regs etc? ,how come insurance companies won't cover a bedroom in the attic if it's not certified?

I have yet to see an insurance company seeking to review certificates of compliance for a domestic house when arranging cover.

Mad_maxx

Peregrinus wrote: »

I didn't say it's not necessary to have it certified. I said the question of whether it's safe depends on whether it was constructed in compliance with building regulations. The question of whether we know it's safe, which is a different question, may be affected by the availability of a certificate.

Obviously, you would prefer to have a certificate; various practical difficulties are presented if you don't have one. But that's a separate question from whether this is a bedroom, which is a question answered by looking at its function, or from whether it can be described as a bedroom in marketing literature, which is a question answered by looking at the regulations (if any) which control what can and cannot be said in marketing literature.

Presumably, it would have been evident to anyone inspecting the documentation package offered in conjunction with the auction that no certificate of compliance was being offered. That might affect whether someone is willing to bid for the property, or what amount they are prepared to bid. But the unavailability of a certificate of compliance is common enough, particularly in sales by receivers or mortgagees in possession, and such houses do sell, so there are obviously people willing to buy them.

presumably a purchaser could go through the planning process again as if no conversion ever took place ?, do a good proper physical conversion with fire doors fitted etc and then attempt to have it certified ? , obviously not without cost but at least you get to have a four bed house - three story house in the end ?

im currently closing a purchase ( private treaty ) on another house in Limerick city ( plan to lease to the council for twenty years ) and was speaking to my solicitor this morning about it , i mentioned this to her and she said the estate she lives in ( in galway city ) , almost all the houses have converted attics and some of them are BTL and advertised as four beds despite being three beds , she herself has an attic conversion but just uses it for storage , i didnt ask her how she know the neighbours houses are not officially converted but presumably solicitors learn a few things due to the nature of their profession

Mad_maxx

Lenar3556 wrote: »

I have yet to see an insurance company seeking to review certificates of compliance for a domestic house when arranging cover.

i meant if a fire broke out and it was discovered the attic was being used as a bedroom

Claw Hammer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The folks involved in the sale Central to our story did claim that one exists

That is untrue. You have already said you didn't see the contract or the requisitions. It is not something that would be emntioned in the brochure even if there was a certificate.

It is clear you are making up lies and advancing incorrect propositions of law in order to try and make some point.
You still have not explained how it happened that someone bid on a property not knowing that the attic conversion had no certification.

Given that you have been contacting TDs about this , I think you are the person, if any, who bid on the property.

Mad_maxx

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That is untrue. You have already said you didn't see the contract or the requisitions. It is not something that would be emntioned in the brochure even if there was a certificate.

It is clear you are making up lies and advancing incorrect propositions of law in order to try and make some point.
You still have not explained how it happened that someone bid on a property not knowing that the attic conversion had no certification.

Given that you have been contacting TDs about this , I think you are the person, if any, who bid on the property.

being accused of telling lies is where I draw the line , on blocked - ignore list you go.

ohnonotgmail

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The folks involved in the sale Central to our story did claim that one exists

Not sure if you are being obtuse or pedantic or both

Did they actually state that a cert existed or is that an assumption because they listed it as 4 bedrooms?

Claw Hammer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

being accused of telling lies is where I draw the line , on blocked you go

Yes, because you can't deny it!

Mad_maxx

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Did they actually state that a cert existed or is that an assumption because they listed it as 4 bedrooms?

as is often the case , no information contained in pack gave the impression that the attic bedroom was certified but as the auction house platform listed the house as a four bed , it was assumed this was not a made up fiction and that there was indeed four bedrooms in the house

foolish not to assume that cynical tactics would be used

Claw Hammer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

as is often the case , no information contained in pack gave the impression that the attic bedroom was certified but as the auction house platform listed the house as a four bed , it was assumed this was not a made up fiction and that there was indeed four bedrooms in the house

foolish not to assume that cynical tactics would be used

So no one said there was a cert. How come the survey didn't pick up on it?

ohnonotgmail

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The folks involved in the sale Central to our story did claim that one exists

Not sure if you are being obtuse or pedantic or both

Mad_maxx wrote: »

as is often the case , no information contained in pack gave the impression that the attic bedroom was certified but as the auction house platform listed the house as a four bed , it was assumed this was not a made up fiction and that there was indeed four bedrooms in the house

foolish not to assume that cynical tactics would be used

so your post then was incorrect. they did not claim that one exists. the only assumption you can make from the lack of a cert in the legal pack is that the 4th bedroom is not certified. it is foolish to rely on a listing when the contract explicitly says that the only information you can rely on is in the legal pack. Again you go back to baldly asserting that this was deliberate on the part of the auction house.

ohnonotgmail

Claw Hammer wrote: »

So no one said there was a cert. How come the survey didn't pick up on it?

I bet they didn't do one. Or if they did they ignored the warning about the 4th bedroom.

Claw Hammer

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I bet they didn't do one. Or if they did they ignored the warning about the 4th bedroom.

Who could be that stupid?

ohnonotgmail

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Who could be that stupid?

*bites tongue*

Mad_maxx

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so your post then was incorrect. they did not claim that one exists. the only assumption you can make from the lack of a cert in the legal pack is that the 4th bedroom is not certified. it is foolish to rely on a listing when the contract explicitly says that the only information you can rely on is in the legal pack. Again you go back to baldly asserting that this was deliberate on the part of the auction house.

how do you reconcile these two statements ?

" its foolish to rely on a listing when the only information you can rely on is in the legal pack "

" again you go back to baldly asserting that this was deliberate on the part of the auction house "

why is it foolish ?, it can only be viewed as foolish if one suspects the auction house might not be fully honest with the facts about the number of bedrooms

Claw Hammer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

how do you reconcile these two statements ?

" its foolish to rely on a listing when the only information you can rely on is in the legal pack "

" again you go back to baldly asserting that this was deliberate on the part of the auction house "

why is it foolish ?, it can only be viewed as foolish if one suspects the auction house might lie about a fourth bedroom

or are you just being obtuse ?

The auction house might lie or make a mistake about a 4th bedroom. Why wasn't it picked up in the survey?

ohnonotgmail

Mad_maxx wrote: »

how do you reconcile these two statements ?

" its foolish to rely on a listing when the only information you can rely on is in the legal pack "

" again you go back to baldly asserting that this was deliberate on the part of the auction house "

why is it foolish ?, it can only be viewed as foolish if one suspects the auction house might lie about a fourth bedroom

or are you just being obtuse ?

it is foolish to rely on information that cannot be relied on. the auction listing cannot be relied on. there is it foolish to rely on the auction listing. It is foolish because it does not form part of the auction contract and you have no recourse for any mistakes in the auction listing. I'm not sure how this can be any clearer.

Mad_maxx

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it is foolish to rely on information that cannot be relied on. the auction listing cannot be relied on. there is it foolish to rely on the auction listing. It is foolish because it does not form part of the auction contract and you have no recourse for any mistakes in the auction listing. I'm not sure how this can be any clearer.

its possible for both the auction house or receiver to have been dishonest about the number of official bedrooms in the house and for the auction contract to over ride any incorrect counting of said bedrooms

the auction house or the receiver or both were dishonest here in terms of detailing the number of bedrooms , any argument claiming otherwise is just wilfully obtuse at best

ohnonotgmail

Mad_maxx wrote: »

its possible for both the auction house or receiver to have been dishonest about the number of official bedrooms in the house and for the auction contract to over ride any incorrect counting of said bedrooms

the auction house or the receiver or both were dishonest here in terms of detailing the number of bedrooms , any argument claiming otherwise is just wilfully obtuse at best

again you make a naked assertion that it was dishonest. it could not possibly have been a simple mistake according to you. Either way it is irrelevant. Anybody who relies on an auction listing and pays no attention to their own surveyor or solicitor in relation to what they are bidding on is a fool. a stupid, ignorant fool.

Claw Hammer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

its possible for both the auction house or receiver to have been dishonest about the number of official bedrooms in the house and for the auction contract to over ride any incorrect counting of said bedrooms

the auction house or the receiver or both were dishonest here in terms of detailing the number of bedrooms , any argument claiming otherwise is just wilfully obtuse at best

Thbe auction house had the correct number of bedrooms. They never represented that there was planning for any or all of the bedrooms.
Dishoneswty is a state of mind. It is inconsisztent with an express statement saying not to rely on the description.
Why wasn't it picked up in the survey anyway?

Mad_maxx

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

again you make a naked assertion that it was dishonest. it could not possibly have been a simple mistake according to you. Either way it is irrelevant. Anybody who relies on an auction listing and pays no attention to their own surveyor or solicitor in relation to what they are bidding on is a fool. a stupid, ignorant fool.

as i said earlier , Its possible for both to be the case

1. The auction house or receiver told lies

2. the bidders acted foolishly


you only wish to focus on the behaviour of one of the parties here , that is arguing in bad faith .

ohnonotgmail

Mad_maxx wrote: »

as i said earlier , Its possible for both to be the case

1. The auction house or receiver told lies

2. the bidders acted foolishly


you only wish to focus on the behaviour of one of the parties here , that is arguing in bad faith .

you have produced nothing to show that item 1 is true. there is plenty to demonstrate that item 2 is true. Can you answer the question about the survey and why it didn't show the issue with the bedroom?

Claw Hammer

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you have produced nothing to show that item 1 is true. there is plenty to demonstrate that item 2 is true. Can you answer the question about the survey and why it didn't show the issue with the bedroom?

You can be sure that no legal secretary would bid on a house without have had a survey done. She should be looking at suing the surveyor, noty trying to get out of the contract.

ohnonotgmail

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You can be sure that no legal secretary would bid on a house without have had a survey done. She should be looking at suing the surveyor, noty trying to get out of the contract.

nobody with even half a brain would bid on a house at auction without getting a survey done first. and getting a solicitor to read the legal pack.

Claw Hammer

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

nobody with even half a brain would bid on a house at auction without getting a survey done first. and getting a solicitor to read the legal pack.

Anyone doing a thing like that should be made a ward of court.

Lenar3556

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Anyone doing a thing like that should be made a ward of court.

They would have to be mad.

Peregrinus

Mad_maxx wrote: »

as is often the case , no information contained in pack gave the impression that the attic bedroom was certified but as the auction house platform listed the house as a four bed , it was assumed this was not a made up fiction and that there was indeed four bedrooms in the house

From what I can make out there are four bedrooms in the house, but in regard to one of them there is no certificate to confirm that it was constructed in compliance with building regulations. But a representation that there are four bedrooms in the house is not a representation that each of them was constructed in compliance with building regulations; still less a representation that there exists a certificate to confirm this.

So, really, the case that the auction house was being dishonest looks pretty thin. You feel that they ought not to have represented that there were four bedrooms if one of those bedrooms was uncertified, but you are unable to point to any law or professional standard to this effect and, clearly, the auction house may not share your feeling. Not sharing your feelings on this matter is not dishonesty.