BUT, i employed qualified tradespersons x y & z they assured me the problem had been remedied, i therefore did not feel it necessary to disclose a problem that i had repaired, i seek to join x y & z in the action u are bringing against me.

I am sure that johnstone will tell us if that would fly or just stagger along the ground.

kenw1 - 2021-04-24 19:22:00

kenw1 wrote:

BUT, i employed qualified tradespersons x y & z they assured me the problem had been remedied, i therefore did not feel it necessary to disclose a problem that i had repaired, i seek to join x y & z in the action u are bringing against me.

I am sure that johnstone will tell us if that would fly or just stagger along the ground.

That is the logical defence. Whether it would succeed depends who is more credible.

johnston - 2021-04-24 20:27:00

Disclosure is disclosure. It means, yes we had issues and remedial work was carried out.

It doesn’t mean no we haven’t had any problems or weren’t aware of any problems (since we had it fixed).

lakeview3 - 2021-04-24 20:37:00

lakeview3 wrote:

Disclosure is disclosure. It means, yes we had issues and remedial work was carried out.

It doesn’t mean no we haven’t had any problems or weren’t aware of any problems (since we had it fixed).

And what loss does it cause by saying you didn't have repairs when it is all fixed properly so what are you seeking compensated for?
We are now looking at the $1000 from the tradies who are going to admit they worked on it that didn't do it properly.
I am not sure these tradies need to disclose who or what property they have worked on.

ash4561 - 2021-04-24 22:25:00

If I was the vendor I might of misinterpreted the question about has there been any leak moisture issues since I have been here. I forgot about the spouting and didn't think that's what they were asking about.
I bought the house off someone else and ask them the same question they said no same thing was happening then I spent money fixing it with tradies. If we were talking $100,000 or a million then shouldn't it go back to the original owner and then back to the architect, builder and council and expect a third each from them.

ash4561 - 2021-04-25 10:11:00

ash4561 wrote:

If I was the vendor I might of misinterpreted the question about has there been any leak moisture issues since I have been here. I forgot about the spouting and didn't think that's what they were asking about.
I bought the house off someone else and ask them the same question they said no same thing was happening then I spent money fixing it with tradies. If we were talking $100,000 or a million then shouldn't it go back to the original owner and then back to the architect, builder and council and expect a third each from them.

Whether it's $1.00 or ten million dollars if you or your agent misrepresent or fail to disclose the principles are the same.

johnston - 2021-04-25 10:53:00

How old is the house?

denlah - 2021-04-25 11:05:00

citydude wrote:

Hey team,

We've recently moved into a new home, it's a 90's brick/plaster home. We were across the risks, and the fact it was plaster was baked into the price.

Prior to making an offer, we asked RE agent if the vendors were aware of any moisture ingress to their home while they were here. Reply via RE agent (in email) was no, and building/thermal imaging report came back clear.

Soon after we moved in, we had a leak through the gutter/soffit (due to poor design). I've now remedied this design, and the timber is again showing as dry, so no long term damage it seems.

When chatting with a neighbor, they mentioned the vendors had a lot of issues with leaks in the same area, which frankly has me fuming.

Being that we've not suffered a loss we can point at, and the evidence to contradict theirs is second hand, and preferably wouldn't want to bring neighbor into it, what potential is there to seek recompense here?

Likely will reach out to lawyer early next week for counsel, but keen for thoughts/advice ahead of that :)

You have said yourself you can not point to loss you have suffered so what recommence do you think would be fair and reasonable?

curlcrown - 2021-04-25 11:42:00

ash4561 wrote:

The agent asked the vendor if there were any weathertightness issues and the vendor said no and copied and pasted this response to the purchaser. The agent appeared honest and would not of known and followed the procedure of asking the vendor and sent the vendors response to the purchaser.
The builder didn't pull anything apart so their report is accurate to what they inspected.
I think the neighbor misunderstood or misinterpreted what went on as the vendor has said there was no weather problems and the neighbor is not party to any of this just nosey and gossiping .
I think the problem developed the day after the purchaser bought it and no one is to blame and the $1000 is just routine repairs and maintenance.

The devil is in the detail. The vendor was asked about whether there were any weathertight issues and since at that moment, there weren't, the vendor said no. They weren' asked whether there were weathertight issues IN THE PAST, to which the reply would have been different. When bought, the house was OK, the moisture reading OK, any future problems are for the new owner to solve. The agent only passed on what they were told, they sure aren't expected to check any answer, they just want to collect their fee and move on. It'd cost the OP more in lawyer's fees to the $1000. Write it off to experience, I think.

evoalg - 2021-04-27 21:14:00

Slightly different devil in the detail "- We have it in writing they don't know about any leak/moisture issues while they were here"-while they were there-what? During the last month they were there or since day one the old vendor owned the place? I am just playing devil's advocate here. If someone asked me if I am aware of any moisture issues, while I've been living here since 1977, I'd answer differently than if I was just asked are you aware of any moisture issues in your house, where you are currently living? I hope it makes sense. But yeah, cheeky of them... Would you have bought the house if you have had known about the issues in the past?

Edited by evoalg at 9:25 pm, Tue 27 Apr

evoalg - 2021-04-27 21:22:00

evoalg wrote:

The devil is in the detail. The vendor was asked about whether there were any weathertight issues and since at that moment, there weren't, the vendor said no. They weren' asked whether there were weathertight issues IN THE PAST, to which the reply would have been different. When bought, the house was OK, the moisture reading OK, any future problems are for the new owner to solve. The agent only passed on what they were told, they sure aren't expected to check any answer, they just want to collect their fee and move on. It'd cost the OP more in lawyer's fees to the $1000. Write it off to experience, I think.

Agents are not expected to check? I had no idea.

johnston - 2021-04-28 06:49:00

johnston wrote:

Agents are not expected to check? I had no idea.

I know, but I mean, do they always? Every time I would ask them a question about a crack in the wall or something like that, I'd receive "the vendor didn't say anything about it" Due diligence seems to be the way to go, but then there is privacy and stuff. Could the agent check with every tradie in town on whether they did the work on the joint?

evoalg - 2021-04-28 12:24:00