Inaccurate pre-purchase inspection

[kelvincht]

Got a legal question here

If the vendor supplied building inspection report, and the inspection missed an expensive water tight issue. Then by believing the inaccurate report and made an unconditional offer and the transaction is settled.

Now the problem is found, it is possible to sue anybody to recover the repair cost or unsettle?

[elguapo]

Now the problem is found, it is possible to sue anybody to recover the repair cost or unsettle?

Who are you going to sue?

[TheLibrary]

You should really see a lawyer to discuss the situation, however, the inspection company was obligated to the vendor not you. Regardless of the building inspection report, if you can prove that information was intentionally withheld.....you might have a case, but that's hard to prove.

This issue comes up so many times...........people need to do their own due diligence.

[Pegasus]

I heard about a similar case recently from a real estate agent. The sellers provided the report which had been done by a family member but looked like an official report. The agent had it at the open home for the buyers to use. After buying it and discovering water tightness issues, the buyer is going after the real estate agency for mis-representation.

[elguapo]

That termite house on John Campbell was the same situation, vendor supplied building inspection. I think there perhaps should be a simple ban on vendors providing that kind of information, there is no come back if something in that report is wrong or missing and simply creates a high likelyhood of mis-representation.

No one really likes the additional cost of getting things like building inspections done, but not doing them can cost a hell of a lot more.

[Nice]

. . . . I think there perhaps should be a simple ban on vendors providing that kind of information . . . .

I think there should be a ban on gullible people buying property ! Surely, it is common sense to get a second opinion of ones own before outlaying perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars ??

[elguapo]

I think there should be a ban on gullible people buying property ! Surely, it is common sense to get a second opinion of ones own before outlaying perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars ??

Easy to say, but if you've missed out on 3, 4, 5 properties at auction and have spent thousands on diligence for those properties, there is a huge temptation to take vendor supplied information at face value. The is, largely, zero come back on this information means there is an incentive for a vendor to miss-lead too. That's not a good thing at all.

It's all very well to claim buyer beware, but you are talking about the largest transactions most people will ever deal with, often the vast majority of their assets. Either the vendor should not provide that kind of information, or there has to be comeback on them if it is incorrect.

[John the builder]

the report was provided to the vendor for his use only and likely had a disclaimer that no others should rely on it. prurchaser relies at thier own risk?

[speights boy]

the report was provided to the vendor for his use only and likely had a disclaimer that no others should rely on it. prurchaser relies at thier own risk?

Would that disclaimer stand up in court ?
If the inspection was negligently carried out, can you 'disclaim' out of responsibility for it ?

[John the builder]

Would that disclaimer stand up in court ?

yes it would, the purchaser has no right to it from PP inspector point of view.

The vendor may still have something to answer for but depends what was made of it. If they said house is good as per my report?

I recommend vendors dont offer these reports to purchaser but insist on due diligence for this reason. Venbor can still get a report to look over and high light things that can be addressed pre-sale.

[speights boy]

kelvincht
Was there an agent involved ?
Was the building of the suspect age / construction / design era that are causing most of the problems ?
If yes to both questions, what did the agent discuss with you about this ?

[garrett]

Firstly - get good legal advice. If you would like some suggestions private message me with your area and I can give you a few to choose from.

Second - check whether or not it was built within the last 10 years and if the vendors were the owners at the time of the original construction or any additional work since. If so they may be liable thanks to the implied warranty in the Building Act that can not be contracted out of. The pre-purchase inspector would be roped in by them as a 3rd party and hopefully he has reasonable indemnity cover. If he is a registered building surveyor he should as that is a requirement of membership of the NZIBS.

If it is outside the 10 year limitation as per the WHRS and Building Acts (these two acts have different definitions of the limitation and occasionally one will apply but not the other) then the only recourse is against the vendor assuming you can prove they did anything wrong - who again will rope in the inspector as a 3rd party.

I'm not a lawyer though and you should get one.

[John the builder]

If it is outside the 10 year limitation as per the WHRS and Building Acts (these two acts have different definitions of the limitation and occasionally one will apply but not the other) then the only recourse is against the vendor assuming you can prove they did anything wrong - who again will rope in the inspector as a 3rd party.'.

a pre purchase inspection is not the 'building work.

The claim is more likely the Fair Trading Act for misleading statement but the statement was to the vendor not the purchaser?

Caveat Emptor?

http://www.lojo.co.nz/updates-article/Caveat-Emptor-Vendor-Warranties?i=234

[garrett]

A pre-purchase inspection reviews the building work. Any non compliant items that are negligently missed by the inspector that therefore cause a loss to the person who hired him can be claimed in tort.

The vendor will only need to claim against the inspector if the purchaser claims against them.

[John the builder]

A pre-purchase inspection reviews the building work

A PP reviews the visual condition that is presented on a certain day and notes any visual signs. He does not assess the 'building work' because usually can not undertake invasive investigation?

these types of inspections are by their nature limited and should not be relied on except for indications of wear and maintenance required