right to sue over house history?

[misdee]

should u be able to sue sellers if they dont disclose the history of a house to you when u buy it? a couple tried recently to sue the sellers as they hadnt told them a murder had been commited in the house. should this information be made compulsory to buyers, or is it irrevelent?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/3492936.stm

house of horrors

Oh, I saw this earlier - yes, I think people should be made aware - it is relevant - some won't mind apparently (after all the couple trying to sue were able to sell the house on, presumably with full disclosure, but at a reduced price) but some will. I would.

The first couple had only been there 2 years when they sold it on so presumably they sold it as soon as they found out too. I think the law should change to cover this kind of thing.

but how many houses have grisley histories behind them that would put people off. would suicides/natural deaths be made to be revealed?

Think I would put suicide/natural death in a different category to murder, though. When we bought our house I think it would have put me off a bit if I'd know the previous owner had died in one of the rooms, though. (He hadn't).

I thought you were obliged to tell people now. My neighbour had to tell buyers that her neighbour was on an anti social behaviour order.
I live in an H/A flat and would like to exchange with someone else, but the housing association have said that they will have to inform any interested party about my neighbour, else they could get sued.

And there are people out there who would buy a house because someone had been killed in there

Its only a few minutes from us, I can't believe they didn't know about it

When I heard this headline on the radio earlier on today I thought " oh come on, there must be loads of houses with unsavoury histories" and I was very dismissive. And then I heard the details... sorry if this makes anyone feel ill - the stepfather murdered the girl and dismembered her body, hiding loads of parts around the house. They think there may still be remains in there, undiscovered.
Now, I think this is a "unique" situation and one that warrants a moral obligation by the vendors to tell the buyers, even if it isn't a strictly legal one.
Does anyone else think the nature of this crime changes things?

carla, we sold my dad's house last year - he died in it - it certainly never occurred to us to mention it. I agree that a natural death is nothing like this case.

Moomin, yes, I agree with you. This kind of case is very rare and I think prospective buyers have a right to know.

After all, the Wests' house in Gloucester was demolished and so has Huntley's (or it will be). There are some houses that no-one should live in again.

i guess there are some houses that shouldnt be occupied again, they should be demolished really. after reading mroe facts on the case, then yes the details should possibly be disclosed, but then again, how much of the past do we know about? how many houses have had murders committed in them then we dont know about? i dont have clue about the history of the place i live in,

(dont read on if squeamish) i know a bit about the site i used to live at, apprantly a man was sucked into one of the wind turbines on the old BAe site and was ripped to pieces. the turbine was buried as they couldnt retrieve enough of the young man to give him a proper burial. altho the place were its buried will never be touched not many people know the location of where the accident happened as its a very large site. people moving to the area might not know that and some may be put off.

I think they should know, thats ghastly...

Moomin - yes from me.