Seller's responsibilities for dodgy central heating?

[bengasman]

...So much of Agiles mutterings are nonsense, but he does have a point. If I suspected a wall was defective, I would ask the vendor to allow me to have it inspected (surveyed). If no permision was forthcoming, I would walk away. The same applies with heating.

Exactly my point. Would you buy a car if you were only allowed to look at it? No, you would not. One can only hope the judge would hold a plaintiff who tried to sue the car vendor for defects on the car that he did he bought without testing or driving, in contempt of court.

 

[namsag]

I suggest all 3 of you do a bit of research into buying houses in Scotland and you will find the laws are very very different from buying a house in the rest of the UK .
Your basic knowledge of english law does not apply and certainly buying a car doesnt equate to buying a house up there

 

[DP]

But the OP doesn't seem to haver a problem with her RGI leaving a defective boiler working, and, with respect, none of us are lawyers. So this is a legal query and, as far as I have read, there has been no clear evidence that the 5 day rule applies in this case, or , in fact, exactly what the 5 day rule is, or exactly covers!

The responsibility of leaving the ID appliance in service rests on the shoulders of the RGI until this weight has been transferred to the responsible person. We do not know the state of play there. Perhaps the OP will throw some light on this subject.

WRT 5 day ruling. Has been checked with in house solicitor. Unless the sale indicates appliances taken as seen, 5 day rule would require the seller to take care of repairs or buyer gets the work done and seller pays for this.

Ben, let us say you pay arm, leg and an eye for purchase of house that you like. Having moved your worldly possessions to your newly purchased property, you find the heating system fails to work or you have reason to suspect it has not been serviced for a long time. Age of the appliance is not important as when funds allow, you will be replacing it. But for the moment you only have money sufficient to survive on jam and toast. Now you will have to sell a kidney to get the boiler replaced or repaired that you are entitled to have in good working order for the FIRST FIVE DAYS. thereafter it becomes your responsibility.

Pure and simple, unless the sale document says otherwise, the seller foots the bill to get this ancient, but solid piece of engineering repaired at his cost and 5 days later the thing can be skipped by the buyer.

I cannot see how or why the OP should be tarred and feathered for pursuing her claim

 

[expertgasman]

WRT 5 day ruling. Has been checked with in house solicitor. Unless the sale indicates appliances taken as seen, 5 day rule would require the seller to take care of repairs or buyer gets the work done and seller pays for this.


Ok, DP, thats interesting. An actual statement of (alleged!) fact. If that is the case, why would her solicitor be pretty much disagreeing? I'm not arguing with you, it just seems she is unfortunate in her choice of legal representation?

Does this 5 day rule apply to anything, say a leaky roof, defective wiring or a shed door hanging off its hinges?Author Message


namsag Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:18 am Post Subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suggest all 3 of you do a bit of research into buying houses in Scotland and you will find the laws are very very different from buying a house in the rest of the UK .
Your basic knowledge of english law does not apply and certainly buying a car doesnt equate to buying a house up there

Are you including me in the gang of three? If so, I would respectfully point out that I have already indicated that I lack knowledge of the Scots system, apart from knowing it is different!

 

[Agile]

Pure and simple, unless the sale document says otherwise, the seller foots the bill to get this ancient, but solid piece of engineering repaired at his cost and 5 days later the thing can be skipped by the buyer.

I cannot see how or why the OP should be tarred and feathered for pursuing her claim

But its NOT pure and simple!

The boiler apparently WAS working! The problem was that it had a part missing and was NOT working safely!

To make matters worse, parts are not available to repair it on account of its age.

It seems to me that a reasonable person would expect it to be not only working but working safely because gas appliances are required to be turned off if they are unsafe. In that case it will not be working as it has been turned off.

I now think that she probably has a valid claim but unless the seller is willing to offer a solution it may have to be tested in court. In that case the claim might fail. This is because the seller did not know about the condition of the boiler and because the purchaser knew from the survey the boiler was old but apparently was not permitted to have it assessed before purchasing the property but still went ahead with the purchase. In that case the court would have to form a view on my previous paragraph.

My view is you have a good basis to claim but the chances of success, as always, will depend on how well its prepared and presented.

Tony

 

[DP]

To make matters worse, parts are not available to repair it on account of its age.

Namsag said

Radiation 401/501 circa 1971.
Round flue spigot on back of fire goes into cast iron plate on boiler 90% certain gasket if it had one is just a rope fibre seal which is still available as generic rope seal

What do you say Tony?

If the RGI is looking to sell the buyer or the seller a new boiler, he just says new boiler required. If he indeed is a heating engineer, he gives his options to repair or replace according to what the bill footing parties want. Granted boiler is old, but then I have encountered householders who have been sold new boiler to replace their Vokera Linea that had a slight defect in it.

 

[u04elw2]

Untitled

• u04elw2
• 20 Apr 2011
• 1

Untitled

• u04elw2
• 20 Apr 2011
• 1

Untitled

• u04elw2
• 20 Apr 2011
• 1

As produced by Scottish Gas...

 

[expertgasman]

I just bought a flat a few weeks ago. As advised I got a plumber in to check the central heating. In the list of things I got back he found:

1. Cold Water Storage Tank is corroded and needs to be replaced.

2. A Gas leak was found at the Cooker - The Appliance had to be disconnected.

3. The Central Heating System works, but there is a Gasket missing on the Flue Connection between the Fire and Back Boiler. The Boiler is in excess of 30 years of age and no Spares are available.

So I emailed the solicitor under advice from the plumber that the seller is liable for making the system safe and in working order.


WHEN were those labels issued?

What has happened about 1 & 2?.

 

[u04elw2]

Cold water tank /hot water storage tank is no use to anyone as my boiler is disconnected and therefore there is no hot water to heat. If I get the recommended combi boiler this tank will be no longer needed anyway.

The cooker was disconnected when he found the fault

 

[expertgasman]

WHEN were those labels issued?

 

[Agile]

DP said:-

Namsag said
Radiation 401/501 circa 1971.
Round flue spigot on back of fire goes into cast iron plate on boiler 90% certain gasket if it had one is just a rope fibre seal which is still available as generic rope seal

What do you say Tony?

If the inspecting engineer had been asked to try to repair the boiler then he would have checked the part was unavailable from the makers.

Then he would have made an assessment of the viability of using generic seals. That creates a problem. There is a general understanding that with a safety critical component only the manufacturer's original part should be used.

Some will use a generic part but doing that creates a responsibility should their judgement be wrong and its very understandable that many dont want to take the risk.

Then there is the age of the boiler to be taken into account. Its a very good argument that there comes a time with very old appliances when its not a sensible option to keep them running by using a non approved part.

Tony

 

[u04elw2]

WHEN were those labels issued?

Friday past.

 

[DP]

If the guy does not even know the difference between threw and through and the fact that boiler is 30 years old, bet the bods at sales office were biting their nails in anticipation of quoting for replacement boiler.

There is a general understanding that with a safety critical component only the manufacturer's original part should be used.

I trust you do not have double standards about what you can do and what you expecty others to do.

How is a generic rope seal going to be different from one that has maker's name on the packaging. I assume you only use makers parts when you replace PRVs, pumps, Honeywell thermocouple (instead of generic) and gas valves.

 

[namsag]

Of course Agile does everything by the book especially working while being properly registered and legal to do so.

 

[nickso]

If the guy does not even know the difference between threw and through and the fact that boiler is 30 years old, bet the bods at sales office were biting their nails in anticipation of quoting for replacement boiler.

There is a general understanding that with a safety critical component only the manufacturer's original part should be used.

I trust you do not have double standards about what you can do and what you expecty others to do.

How is a generic rope seal going to be different from one that has maker's name on the packaging. I assume you only use makers parts when you replace PRVs, pumps, Honeywell thermocouple (instead of generic) and gas valves.

bit of a cheap shot that and not at all appreciated danny. at least he can write clearly if not properly.

glazier moaning about using only the correct manufacturers part, now i have seen it all. what a shame i can't be bothered to sift back through his ramblings to find the thread where he was bemoaning BG for not fitting a generic part and instead classing the boiler as unsafe.