P-D de Rouffignac Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 Reading this post, and looking at some of the jurisprudence related to 'vices cachés' I am inclined to take a view more favourable to the potential buyer in this situation. It is always arguable how much a vendor knew or was prepared to reveal about a property, with a certain reliance on good faith. In a case such as this, a court might take the view that he/she knew about the threat and the impending report - the situation appears to have been common knowledge in the town - and would have to decide whether the vendor and/or the agent deliberately concealed this from a buyer in order to conclude a sale. On the other side, a buyer does not have to be reminded that, for example, a property is next door to a busy road or an apartment is located above a potentially noisy bar, he can see this for himself. Likewise, he should normally be aware of the risks associated with living in a mountain area where there is a possibility of avalanches. However, in this situation it appears that the area surrounding the property has been re-classified to one of high risk which radically alters the value and attractiveness of the property. A French court might in fact side with the potential buyer. French law and jursiprudence distinguish between 'professional buyers' and the ordinary lay person, with a tendency to protect the latter, against those who could or should have known about a possible deterrent to purchase which a court might argue they had a duty to reveal. If expert reports were available at the time of the 'compromis de vente' it would be interesting to know how they described the situation, and again how much was known and revealed (or not) about the recent risk survey. P-D de R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Doctor Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 Thanks Papachapa, that's very helpful. I missed that detail on the marie's website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ugo Posted August 18, 2010 Author Share Posted August 18, 2010 thanks again to everybody, I am learing a lot! This is such a bummer, it goes well beyond the finaicla costs. We have been looking for the perfect chalet for more than three years and after we had found it and had developed an emotional attachment to it, this whole thing happned. Ohh well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 Ugo, if the danger was indeed common knowledge at the time you viewed the property and agreed to buy, then I would agree with P-D that it should increase your chances of success should you decide to follow the 'vice caché' route. On the other hand, no form of legal action in France should be undertaken lightly; even if you win, it will take ages and your legal costs can be very high.It does sound as if things may not be as bad - the press report obviously highlights the 'worst case' situation, and if some of the water can be removed, as proposed, the risk will be reduced considerably. In a tourist area, stabilising things will be a very high priority, otherwise far more than just your chalet will be at risk. Nobody wants to visit a place that could be drowned.As Judie and P-D pointed out, you should have had a diagnostic report covering such risks available before you paid the deposit and signed (or at least before your so-called cooling off period was up). What did that say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mint Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 Ugo, do NOT give up until you have investigated all the avenues available to you!Perhaps you could negotiate a further period of time for signing the acte authentique. By buying yourself some time, you might get to learn more about the how the proposed works are going to affect the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ugo Posted August 18, 2010 Author Share Posted August 18, 2010 Will, the report highlighted the standard risks of all mountain town (I compared with several other mountain resorts and they were all the same). The compromis de vente included a map showing the various areas of the town classified as low risk, moderate risk, and high risk. My plot was classified as low risk. However, things have now changed because the glacier sits right on top of the chalet I am planning to buy and that specific area is now at high risk. Thanks for the advice Ugo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 As the experts put it at low risk at the time of purchase, then unless the experts have been negligent there would not be a good case for vice caché in my opinion, but due to such a material change since then then you might have a good case for asking for the compromis de vente to be cancelled. Should be worth a try if you would rather not take the chance of going ahead and all being OK. It might just be put down to an 'act of God' or similar, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just john Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 Sometimes a simple conversation with the notaire may clarify matters, if you get some idea of the insurance quotes, together with the risk designation and changes, then discuss it with the notaire, the vendor has only one of four options, 1) cancel your sale, 2) refund the deposit or ask for 10% to cancel3) offer a discount to complete4) insist on full payment.Only when you have their option can you discuss the legal alternatives with someone qualified . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gardener Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 [quote user="Ugo"] Will, the report highlighted the standard risks of all mountain town (I compared with several other mountain resorts and they were all the same). The compromis de vente included a map showing the various areas of the town classified as low risk, moderate risk, and high risk. My plot was classified as low risk. However, things have now changed because the glacier sits right on top of the chalet I am planning to buy and that specific area is now at high risk. Thanks for the advice Ugo[/quote]Was there a date on this map which specified that your plot was low risk? May be worth finding out if there is a more up to date one.I don't know the ins and outs of the rules of vice caché, but I would start cataloging every reference to this mountain glacier because I find it hard to believe that the seller didn't know about this potential problem.Just a thought, did you include a caluse on your compris that you need to secure a mortgage for this property? If so, tell the bank that this property is now high risk, they'll refuse to lend the money and you can pull out with no penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 You need to check your contract about how much you have to pay if you pull out of the sale. We recently signed a compromis paying a deposit of 5% but if we pull out of the sale, we have to pay 10%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre ZFP Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 I think that's quite normal and Will pointed this out on Page 1 of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swissie Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 Ugo, I really feel for you and your family- what a situation to find yourself in. How good is your French? I have French Googled the issue, and it seems the glacier has been monitored from 1988 - and that the inhabitants of the town have knows about the dangers for quite some time. Look up Etude scientifique du glacier de Bonnassay. If I were you I'd challenge them re vice caché - especially the report that the chalet is in zone low risk. Although the final report came out recently, the problem was definitely recorded in 207. Sweet's OH is right that you should in the circumstances exceptianlly get a substantial reduction - but the reports also say that the warning system would only give about 15 to 30 mins max to evacuate if the pouch burst - so not easy to accept - and of course I'd imagine insurance would be impossible. My very warmest wishes OdileSweet is right - it is a beautiful area (but...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachapapa Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 Swissie it is the glacier de tête rousse that contains the pocket of water noy the glacier de bonnassay. the tête rousse is at a higher altitude abve the bonnassay. If the pocket of water breaks out it will flow down over the bonnassay glacier and this is why there is a delay of 30 minutes before it hits the valley floor. The flow across the bonnassay glacier is considered to mitigate the force of the water.If you believe the CNRS like I do.[:)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonrouge Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Sweet 17 slightly off track but sorry the Agent in the UK is not negligent. His duty is towards his client ie the guy who is selling the house. He does not in my mind have a duty of care as in TORT to the purchaser. That is where the Solicitors comes into play he must carry out all searches and whilst a Solicitor can act for both parties (two differing Solicitors within the same practice) it is normal for both parties to have their own. Searches such as environmental problems flood zones etc are carried out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swissie Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Not sure, really. If I ask my garage to sell on my car with a broken axel- would he do it- knowing the situation full well? To my mind, selling a house in such a risk situation without declaring, is just criminal.Any news Ugo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mint Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Hi, Dragon, how're you doing?Yes, I stand corrected, the agent is not negligent in the UK. But, if he intentionally withholds information that he would have as a local person with local knowledge, then surely he has a duty to reveal that info?I suppose it's different if he is an agent from another area and does not know the local topography.Years ago, I seem to remember that some houses were affected by solution cavities in the Bridgend (mid Glamorgan area) and local estate agents and surveyors would always have a clause to say that these cavities are present, that their exact location is unknown but that any individual property could be affected.I know, it's just a sort of catch-all clause they hide behind. Similarly, in this case, they seem to have had something in place to say it's a mountain area and therefore avalanches, etc cannot be ruled out.Not easy, IMHO, for the OP to say he had absolutely no knowledge. Though the fact that they have changed his area from low to high risk so soon after he signed must swing in his favour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swissie Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 As said before, there is lots of evidence on the Internet to show that serious research about this known problem has been going on for years- and confirmed as serious risk from 2007. I wish you all the very best Ugo - it seems they were waiting for a 'foriner' to come along, who would not have had any knowledge of this, and as such you should really be able to challenge it- either for a big reduction, or to withdraw and recoup all or part of the money. You really need to find a good solicitor quickly, though. Bonne chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swissie Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 Any news Ugo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachapapa Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 The evacuation of the water from the pocket in the Tête Rousse glacier high above St Gervais will commence tomorrow morning thursday.http://videos.tf1.fr/jt-20h/la-vallee-de-saint-gervais-retient-son-souffle-6046499.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swissie Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Thanks for that. I do wonder how Ugo is getting on- it would be nice to hear from him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ugo Posted August 26, 2010 Author Share Posted August 26, 2010 Since many of you asked, here's an update: my wife and I met with the agency on Friday. They said that since this report is a "new element," we have the right to cancel the contract at no cost to us. We are a bit heartbroken because we really loved the chalet, but we decided that cancelling was the rational thing to do. We are now trying to find out about the process for cancelling the contract. Thanks again for your help and support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swissie Posted August 26, 2010 Share Posted August 26, 2010 Ugo my heart does out to you - but I do think you are making the right decision. You would never forgive yourself if anything ever happened, and Insurance would have been a nightmare. I feel sorry for the vendor too - not their fault. Good luck with the hunt for another perfect chalet, in the right place. Bonne chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Doctor Posted August 26, 2010 Share Posted August 26, 2010 Yes, its bad luck. If I were you Ugo I'd wait till the works on the glacier are finished then go find something else in the town or surrounding area. My understanding is that the high risk areas are only those at the very lowest level in the valley floor (below 10m). This means vast majority of properties are perfectly safe.I am out to St gervais on Saturday, so will be interested to feel the vibes and see whether property prices have shifted down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprogster Posted August 26, 2010 Share Posted August 26, 2010 Because of the known risk, finding insurance to cover this would be impossible.If you enter into a comprise de vente that is subject to finance, this gives you an escape route, even if you intend to pay cash. For example, in this situation a bank would refuse to lend because of the risk to their security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ugo Posted August 27, 2010 Author Share Posted August 27, 2010 Please let me know what you find out, indeed we are stil interested in the area but want to wait and see how the situation eveolves ugo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now