DIY Electrical Changes Made?

[ban-all-sheds]

I do realise that.

And I do realise that the new owner may be compelled to rectify deficiencies in the work.

But that does not mean that the new owner can be prosecuted and fined for the offence of non-notification committed by a previous owner.

 

[mattylad]

It transfers ownership of a property with non compliances, so the problem has a new owner. When are you going to realize this?

Salad, when are you going to realise (with an "s" as I'm English) that BAS is correct.

Buying a property does not make the new owner liable for the crimes of the previous owner. It only makes them responsible for correcting them.

 

[SaladFingers]

It transfers ownership of a property with non compliances, so the problem has a new owner. When are you going to realize this?

Salad, when are you going to realise (with an "s" as I'm English) that BAS is correct.

Buying a property does not make the new owner liable for the crimes of the previous owner. It only makes them responsible for correcting them.

Well solicitors tell me that I'm right. You can argue it with them if you like.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Salad, when are you going to realise (with an "s" as I'm English) that BAS is correct.

Never, it seems, because of deliberate or unavoidable obtuseness.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well solicitors tell me that I'm right. You can argue it with them if you like.

They aren't here spouting utter nonsense - you are.

 

[SaladFingers]

Well solicitors tell me that I'm right. You can argue it with them if you like.

They aren't here spouting utter nonsense - you are.

Well, at that moment of time I'd rather beleive a member of the legal world, rather than someone on the internet who's usually only ever seen arguing with people

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well, at that moment of time I'd rather beleive a member of the legal world, rather than someone on the internet who's usually only ever seen arguing with people

For all I care you can believe that the world is flat, or that the US Govt blew up the WTC, or that 75 million years ago an alien called Xenu brought billions of his people to Earth and and killed them with H-bombs.

Just don't come here telling people b*ll*cks like that when they ask questions.

 

[SaladFingers]

Well, at that moment of time I'd rather beleive a member of the legal world, rather than someone on the internet who's usually only ever seen arguing with people

For all I care you can believe that the world is flat, or that the US Govt blew up the WTC, or that 75 million years ago an alien called Xenu brought billions of his people to Earth and and killed them with H-bombs.

Just don't come here telling people b*ll*cks like that when they ask questions.

But still, one would rather beleive a solicitor, over you.

Also, you're losing your temper again over a thread on the internet, that won't do your health any good, my dear.

Lowering the tone to swearing, now, that's just not a way to conduct yourself.

Learn to behave, Mr Bas x

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But still, one would rather beleive a solicitor, over you.

A solicitor DID NOT tell you that if you buy a house, and it turns out that a previous occupant may have committed a criminal offence there, then you will be taken to court in his place and if it's established beyond reasonable doubt that he did commit the offence then you will be found guilty, receive a criminal record, and be fined and/or imprisoned.

And not one person here believes that preposterous nonsense, except you.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Well solicitors tell me that I'm right. You can argue it with them if you like.

Did you stop arguing with them after they told you that?

 

[SimonH2]

A solicitor DID NOT tell you that if you buy a house, and it turns out that a previous occupant may have committed a criminal offence there, then you will be taken to court in his place and if it's established beyond reasonable doubt that he did commit the offence then you will be found guilty, receive a criminal record, and be fined and/or imprisoned.

To be fair, it is possible that he did - but it's hard to imagine even the most incompetent solicitor getting it that badly wrong. Just like in electrics, plumbing, and building - there are cowboys. Perhaps he asked Andrew Crossley :
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/19/davenport_lyons_sra/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/03/lawyers_fined_file_sharing/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/08/acslaw_bankrupt/


More likely is that SF asked a different question, and the answer he's giving us is the correct answer - but to that different question. I've seen that happen many times.

 

[SaladFingers]

But still, one would rather beleive a solicitor, over you.

A solicitor DID NOT tell you that if you buy a house, and it turns out that a previous occupant may have committed a criminal offence there, then you will be taken to court in his place and if it's established beyond reasonable doubt that he did commit the offence then you will be found guilty, receive a criminal record, and be fined and/or imprisoned.

And not one person here believes that preposterous nonsense, except you.

I did not say what you have said above. You have taken what I've said and twisted it in a possible attempt at saving face.

 

[SaladFingers]

More likely is that SF asked a different question, and the answer he's giving us is the correct answer - but to that different question. I've seen that happen many times.

I didn't ask any questions.

What came was, there were no certification for the windows that were fitted not so long ago. Turns out the vendor did them himself and didn't notify.

 

[SaladFingers]

Well solicitors tell me that I'm right. You can argue it with them if you like.

Did you stop arguing with them after they told you that?

I wasn't arguing with any solicitor.

 

[JohnW2]

To be fair, it is possible that he did - but it's hard to imagine even the most incompetent solicitor getting it that badly wrong. ... More likely is that SF asked a different question, and the answer he's giving us is the correct answer - but to that different question. I've seen that happen many times.

Indeed so - or, even given a competent solicitor, the question and/or the answer may have been worded such that it was misunderstood by the other party.

As almost everyone has said or implied, the chances surely are that the solicitor was answering (or thought (s)he was answering) a question about possible responsibilities/liabilities, hence potential financial losses/liabilities, as a result of past electrical work - and gave a correct general answer which (due to lack of clarity of answer,or lack of understanding of it) led the OP to think he was being told that a new householder could be held responsible for the non-notification, per se, of work by someone else.

Kind Regards, John