Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask previous house owners to pay to sort this out?

66 replies

itsabongthing · 29/01/2019 12:57

A good friend moved into a new home about 6 months ago, it has a wood burning stove.
There was a HETAS (stove governing body/regulator) certificate provided so they assumed all was well.

Recently whilst using the stove the sort of plate but round the pipe fell down. They’d already booked a chimney sweep anyway for the following week so left it.
The chimney sweep came and said the stove installation didn’t look right at all - recommended a stove specialist to come round.

The stove specialist came round - said it was non complaint and unsafe, lots of issues with it. Told them not to use it until it was sorted. Quotes for the work needed but also said to follow up with HETAS.

HETAS taken it very seriously, verified via photos that’s it’s not safe etc.
They have contacted the installer, who then contacted my friend directly.
He’s very apologetic, very upset to have been contacted by HETAS and said that when he left the installation it was compliant. The previous owner of the house is in the building trade and is a friend/acquaintance of the installer, they have worked together before. The installer was very cross with his ‘friend’ because he said he changed the stove after the installation and in doing so, removed an adaptor to the flue leaving it unconnected with a very short stove pipe (one of the issues).
He offered to come and rectify and said he would give the bill to the previous owner - all good.
Then he calls back saying the previous owner says he doesn’t want to pay because the house was sold ‘as seen’. Installer has offered labour for free but really wants cost of materials covered.

Would be really interested on others thoughts on this. Should my friend just pay for the materials to make it compliant so they can use again? Should they pursue the previous owner? Do you think morally/legally he should be liable?

OP posts:
clary · 29/01/2019 12:59

Possible comeback if it was raised on the survey (ie if the surveyor looked at it in detail and said it was OK). Otherwise no, caveat emptier.

Bluelady · 29/01/2019 13:01

Morally the previous owner should be liable. Legally he isn't, unfortunately once completion has taken place, the buyer is liable. Sorry.

Melon6412 · 29/01/2019 13:02

Unfortunately it is the buyers responsibility to check the suitability, compliance and quality of all goods before purchasing.

Agree with the comment regarding the Surveyor. Beyond that it's a moral issue and if the original owner is refusing to pay costs then for the sake of safety and a liveable home, I would simply pay for the materials and be thankful for the free labour.

Neverunderfed · 29/01/2019 13:03

Legally I don't think so...when you buy a house you have all this sort of thing checked so don't think she could pursue him. I'd just suck it up and get it fixed like you would anything else.

Original poster
itsabongthing · 29/01/2019 13:04

Ok thank you for responses so far.
Other complicating factor (sorry for drip feed) is that wife of the couple who previosuly owned it is still in same area and they will have kids at same school next year so don’t want to make things massively awkward

OP posts:
Original poster
itsabongthing · 29/01/2019 13:06

But they provided the HETAS certificate knowing they had altered it since then and the issues with the installation weren’t visible until that thing fell down.
But I take everyone’s point.

OP posts:
Walkingdeadfangirl · 29/01/2019 13:06

If house was bought 6 months ago then its to late to charge the previous owner. Your friend should have had the stove checked out before purchase if it was that important to them. Also does their insurance not cover it?

CallMeSirShotsFired · 29/01/2019 13:15

IANAL, but surely the surveyor and purchaser were all reliant on the HETAS certificate being applicable to the work they vendor was selling it as?

The vendor has therefore fraudulently/dishonestly(?) presented the stove as signed off, but it is not the same stove that HETAS signed off.

(I bought a sideboard from a seconds section which had one noted scratch on the leg. When it arrived, there was a brand new gouge across the top. Shop tried to tell me "as seen" included any new damage they caused in between my buying and them delivering...er, no.)

Juells · 29/01/2019 13:16

Morally the previous owner should be liable. Legally he isn't, unfortunately once completion has taken place, the buyer is liable. Sorry.

I wouldn't see it like that at all. The certificate supplied was bogus, as the vendor knew he'd changed things since the certificate was issued. I'd be taking him to small claims court for a start, but the 'as seen' bullshit doesn't wash when a certificate has been supplied. IMO

CallMeSirShotsFired · 29/01/2019 13:19

OP, if it were me, I'd be asking your surveyor and/or solicitor for details of the exact checks they made in regard to the stove/certification.

Were any serial numbers cross checked?
Were direct questions asked of the vendor regarding it? (been a long time since I saw one of the buyer's standard questionnaires though)

etc.

Mayrhofen · 29/01/2019 13:22

How much money are we talking? sometimes the stress isn't worth the cost. I wouldn't give two hoots about the seller being another parent though and she would get the dead eye from me thereafter.

Bluntness100 · 29/01/2019 13:22

Of course she could go after them legally, but the time and cost of this wil, far outweigh the costs associated with just paying.

It's shit, but that's what I would do. Just pay

Why did the previous owners change it and make it unsafe. That's very odd behaviour.

NoSquirrels · 29/01/2019 13:25

The quickest and easiest thing is to just pay the installer for the materials.

Obviously the former owner is not going to pay - he can't even be guilted into it by his 'mate' - so if they want the woodburner usable it needs to be fixed and the chances of getting blood out of a stone are slim...

Mondrian · 29/01/2019 13:28

Just pay for the parts and thank the installer for doing the job free and move on, problem solved.

Pissedoffdotcom · 29/01/2019 13:28

If the certificate was handed over knowing that the stove had been tampered with then i think your friend has a case. A friend bought a flat a few years back that came with confirmation the boiler was okay, serviced etc. Turned out it was fake, a friend of theirs had supplied it without even looking at the boiler. Once the boiler started being used it flooded the flat. My friend got the cost of a new boiler plus cost to sort the flat out from previous owner because they knowingly supplied false info.

RomanyRoots · 29/01/2019 13:29

it's nothing to do with the previous owner, your friend is the new owner and it falls to her.
You need to get all these things checked before use, it's up to the owner.
We always get a safety certificate even if issued with one, because you don't know what has been done since the certificate.

Original poster
itsabongthing · 29/01/2019 13:30

Think it’s about £300.
He changed it for a bigger stove.
It is weird because he put his own family at risk, they also clearly never had the chimney swept or their chimney sweep would have picked up on it.
Not sure if the HETAS certificate specified model of stove or not.

OP posts:
Juells · 29/01/2019 13:30

it's nothing to do with the previous owner, your friend is the new owner and it falls to her.

Bogus certificate supplied. Fraud.

EchoCardioGran · 29/01/2019 13:33

Speak to HETAS directly before you do anything, and tell them what the installer is telling you.
They have a compliance questionnaire for you to fill in, if you have not already done this. Don't speak to them through the installer.
Take their advice, very helpful people.
He might have told them a different tale.

m00rfarm · 29/01/2019 13:33

of course there is comeback,. THey provided an incorrect certificate of compliance ON PURPOSE! You wenr to the installer who proved that the installation had been changed. So the previous owners should be contacted by your lawyer to explain why they provided a certificate that was incorrect.

cstaff · 29/01/2019 13:33

When buying a property you buy "as is" - this is why it is on the purchaser to have surveys done to check out everything and if they have any issues with the house these are brought up prior to signing of the Contracts.

If something is found on a survey the vendor can either drop the price - if they chose not to drop the price then the purchaser has to make a decision whether or not to go ahead but in the knowledge that there is a fault with the fire or whatever.

Butterfly84 · 29/01/2019 13:40

Your friend should just have the installer sort it out and pay him for the materials as he suggested. It'll be such an unecessary hassle to keep contacting the previous owner. Just move on.

Bluntness100 · 29/01/2019 13:41

Speak to betas, they are excellent, and I can't recall I'd rhe certificate mentions the stove type, I'd have to dig mine out but an installation is about way more than the stove. It's not a bogus certificate, it's simply he's changed the stove since then and not installed it properly. Possibly he thought he had.

Personally I'd chalk it down to experience and just pay it.

Tinty · 29/01/2019 13:42

Other complicating factor is that wife of the couple who previously owned it is still in same area and they will have kids at same school next year so don’t want to make things massively awkward.

I don't think his wife should be held responsible for what he did. She is unlikely to know that he changed the stove and made it non-compliant. I expect if he was a builder he would have told her that he knew what he was doing and it was perfectly safe and followed regulations.

Dungeondragon15 · 29/01/2019 13:45

If he changed things after it was certified then I think it is fraud. It depends on how much it is but I would consider taking him to court.

Swipe left for the next trending thread