misrepresentation

[steve]

Hi, I have recently purchased on old farm house and out buildings

in Normandy. The property was described as being at the edge of a lane and

having mains water, well water, a septic tank to inspect, wood single glazed

windows, oil and wood central heating. We have now found out that the mains

water is a hose connected to a water meter in the old cow shed and not

connected to the house and the house was supplied by the well water which is

disconnected by a broken pipe at the pressure tank and also that there are

broken copper pipes in the house and some bits missing altogether in the attic

so the house has no water and no heating at all. We did get reports on the

Plumbing but it did not state that it was not working and this was never

pointed out to me at any time. I did get the property at a lower price than advertised

so does this mean I have offered a price I think the property is worth or is

the agent at fault?

[nectarine]

fairly obvious question, but the description that you give .... was this in writing? Do you have an estate agent flyer with this on?

[idun]

 You have mains water, if it is connected to the barn and it does say well water too.

Who gave you the reports on the plumbing????? Exactly who were they and what does it say?

I would contact the notaire immediately and discuss this with them. And if your insurance has legal cover, then contact them too about the miss selling.

If you knocked the price down, then all involved may believe that you had done this because of the repairs that were needed.

[Patf]

Buying a house in France leaves much more investigation up to the buyer, compared with the UK. Where a solicitor does searches.

I think the hose arrangement you mention could be common, that's what we found we had at our first house here. To our horror when a digger cut through it  [:'(]

[Debra]

If the well water tests well I'd just reconnect that rather than pay for mains water!

[NormanH]

You may have a case of Vice caché, but yu would have to prove that the flaws were hidden.

I any case the agent is only an agent, and you would have to sue the previous owner..

Vices

Cachés (Hidden defects)

(Remember that this is a 'one size fits all' rule,

which covers such sales as cars or fridges as well as houses, so some

sections are rather less applicable to a house sale for example even

if they are stated here)

The following in English

summarises two French sources from the following links (which I give

in case you want to check them)

1) the legal texts in the

Code (link

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI000006441924&idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000006165624&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070721&dateTexte=20080409)

2) A useful article

in the on-line site pap.fr which specialises in buying and selling

houses between private individuals

http://www.pap.fr/conseils/achat-vente/les-garanties-de-l-acheteur-apres-la-vente/la-garantie-des-vices-caches-a6940

So first what is stated

in the Legal Code

Article

1641 of the Code

The seller has to guarantee what ever is sold against

hidden defects which make the article unfit for use, or so diminish

its usefulness that the buyer wouldn't have bought it, or would have

paid a lower price if it had been known

Article 1642

The seller isn't

responsible for defects that the buyer could have seen for

himself

Article 1643

The seller is responsible

for hidden defects even if not aware of them ,

unless it has been stipulated that no guarantee is given (

note:This is usually the case with a house sale and there is a

clause in the 'Acte de Vente saying this, but

see below about 'bad faiith')

Article 1645

If it can be shown that the seller knew about the defect damages

and interest can be added

Article 1646

If the defect was unknown the seller

has only to reimburse the purchase price and the expenses of purchase

Those texts sound rather frightening

applied to a house sale, so here is the summary of the article I

mentioned which interprets them in the context of buying and selling

property

What is a hidden defect in a house?

1)It has to be hidden that

is to say not obvious (even if the seller was unaware)

To decide whether the

flaw was hidden the judge uses the rule of ' the vigilent eye of a

good father' that is to say that is to say that the seller can't be

expected to delve too deeply, for example not bing able to examine

places that are covered up with fibreglass

2) The buyer didn't know about the defect at the moment of

buying

If known the defect is classed as

having been accepted, so anything mentioned in the 'Acte' such as

the diagnostics can't be claimed for

3) The fault has to be shown as having

existed before the sale

4) As in the rules above the defect

has to make the property unfit for use, or so

diminish its usefulness that the buyer wouldn't

have bought it, or would have paid a lower

price if it had been known

Some examples

Fragile load-bearing

beams

Liable to flooding

The estate agent is not

responsible since he is acting only as agent

The

buyer has 2 years the discovery of the defect to

act

In the case of a private

seller (even through an agent) it is customary for there to be a

clause in the contract exonerating the seller from responsibility.

However that is nul and void if the buyer can prove bad faith,

that is either that the seller knew about the fault or

deliberately hid it.

But the buyer has to prove this

What the buyer can obtain

The sale

can be cancelled or the price reduced

If the

price is reduced that is usually in relation to the work that has to

be done

At worst if

bad faith can be shown

the buyer can demand damages and interest

[idun]

NH, I have read all this before, but who actually does the legal action work and who pays for it??? My friend (french) had a problem with her neighbour who was a litigious.  My friend kept winning, but the neighbour kept appealing everytime. My friend got none of her many thousands and thousands of €'s back for her costs, no award, just a simple win everytime.

That was why I suggested any legal cover the OP's home insurance may cover.

[NormanH]

Well I had that to hand since an English couple I know are being sued by the buyer of their previous house at the moment, and I prepared that so they could have a better idea.

In their case they have had a letter from the buyer's avocat, and have contacted one themselves to defend them.

 I had suggested going to a conciliateur de justice but they seem to have decided against that route

[idun]

I'd forgotten about that route NH, thanks for reminding. A Conciliateur de Justice would be a good and cheaper option.

Avocats are very expensive.

[steve]

Hi, Yes it was in writing and I still have the paperwork, It is the leaflet that gives a description of the property for sale

[steve]

ok thanks

[steve]

Thanks for all the information. It all seems very involved and maybe expensive. I think maybe it would be cheaper and less painful to just pay for the repairs myself and after all I did knock the price down .

[NormanH]

The main point is that it is the seller who is responsible for the state of the property, even if the agent gave a misleading description (as far as Vice Caché is concerned anyway)

[EuroTrash]

I would have thought it depends what it says on the compromis and acte de vente, rather than the estate agent's blurb. Normally the compromis is very specific, and when the buyer and seller have signed it, it's binding, but unless there is anything in there that is incorrect I doubt you will get very far. Lots of old houses don't have what you might think of as 'mains water', nor central heating, so their absence isn't necessarily a vice unless you have a legal document stating that they are there.

But why didn't the plumbing report mention that there were bits missing ???

[Rabbie]

Having looked a a large number of french properties over the last three years, I can report that it is usual for the estate agent's details to have a disclaimer that they are not responsible for any inaccuracy in the burb. I feel the buyer has a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure everything is as it says it is.

[EuroTrash]

I know that comparing the two countries is irrelevant, but it reminds me of last time I was househunting in the UK, we were specifically looking for something detached but it was surprising how many of the 'detached' properties we were recommended to view had houses joined on, in fact one of them had houses joined on on both sides and was in fact a mid-terrace, cunningly photographed to look detached. The number of miles we drove to see houses that weren't even remotely as described. You certainly can't rely on UK estate agent descriptions.

[PaulT]

Having not sold a house in France I cannot comment on the system but I presume the details follow a similar pattern to the UK. The agent draws up a draft that is then submitted to the vendor for either approval or amendment thereby making the vendor responsible for the accuracy.

[woolybanana]

We saw on another thread a while ago that the vice cache clause is being abused by being extended to five years or more and that vendors are being made responsible for stuff they could not know about, such as woodworm in inaccessible spaces.

[nomoss]

The last two houses we bought here, in 2000 and 2010, had a clause in the Acte de Vente stating the house was sold "as is", with no responsibility on the vendor for any faults, even if hidden. I don't know about the previous houses we have bought in France.

I was told by the Notaire who handled the 2000 sale that this was normal for the sale of a house over a certain age (25 years?)

I asked the Notaire who handled the sale of this house whether we had any recourse concerning some problems we found after the purchase.

She told me the only way there was any possibility of receiving compensation would be if a fault were dangerous, and the seller knew about it, which would probably cost more in time and money to establish than we would gain.

 

 

[NormanH]

Believe it or not my first post was actually considerably condensed, but I did cover that clause:

In the case of a private

seller (even through an agent) it is customary for there to be a

clause in the contract exonerating the seller from responsibility.

However that is nul and void if the buyer can prove bad faith,

that is either that the seller knew about the fault or

deliberately hid it.

In the case of the people I am trying to help the buyer is doing just this trying to prove 'bad faith ' in which case the 'as is' clause is null and void

[nomoss]

I did read your first post Norman, but did you read mine?[:D]

The point I was trying to make is that the Notaire told me that the fault would have to be dangerous, as well as the seller knowing about it, in order to override the customary clause for old houses.

Perhaps this was simply her opinion, or experience, on the circumstances where I would have a chance of winning a case based on hidden defect.

In the case of our house, the defect was main beam ends rotted away where they were (or used to be) buried in the walls. They had been supported, a long way back, by solid brick piers built under the ends, so could not be considerd as dangerous.