Don't represent that there is no knotweed when selling your house if you don't know

[AliG]

Interesting case today.

 

I can't see how the seller thought they weren't liable and went to court rather than just paying up.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11679077/Accountant-slams-miscarriage-justice-200-000-Japanese-knotweed-bill.html#comments

[SteamyTea]

Did wonder if the house insurers were the ones that actually paid.

 

Would probably cost only a few quid on glyphosate to get rid of it.

 

But both sides have had Thier 15 minutes of fame, and the new home owner has promoted his business, not that I would risk buying any of his furniture. Might end up in court.

 

Did we not have someone on here complaint about Thier neighbour restricting access, and the person who lived next door complaint about the neighbours extension.

Or did I dream that.

Edited January 26, 2023 by SteamyTea

[AliG]

I don't remember that, but maybe.

 

I just don't see why he didn't pay up the £16k that they requested to get rid of it and instead fought it. I am fairly certainly lawyer would tell me to tick the don't know box re knotweed unless I could categorically say there was none.

[ToughButterCup]

24 minutes ago, AliG said:

...

I just don't see why he didn't pay up the £16k that they requested to get rid of it ...

 

From the article

Quote

He added: 'With hindsight, I should have paid the £16,000 because I'm going to have to pay out a lot more. But I was so angry and shocked by the tone of the letter that I decided to stand my ground because I was innocent about the knotweed.'

 

There in black and white: the rationale for keeping your cool and focusing on your opponent's message, and not on how it's delivered.

[Alan Ambrose]

What is disgraceful is that the solicitors were allowed to run up a joint bill of £195K of legal fees on a £16K dispute. I don't see how that's even possible in the County Court (as opposed to the High Court).

 

Both sides and the judge seemed to have completely ignored Civil Procedure Rules 44.4 (1):

 

Factors to be taken into account in deciding the amount of costs
44.4

   (1) The court will have regard to all the circumstances in deciding whether costs were –

      (a) if it is assessing costs on the standard basis –

         (i) proportionately and reasonably incurred; or

         (ii) proportionate and reasonable in amount, or

...

 

see: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part-44-general-rules-about-costs#rule44.4

 

[Redoctober]

2 minutes ago, Alan Ambrose said:

What is disgraceful is that the solicitors were allowed to run up a joint bill of £195K of legal fees on a £16K dispute. I don't see how that's even possible in the County Court (as opposed to the High Court).

 

Yes, it is disgraceful BUT from my experience when we had an issue with a neighbour many moons ago, the Solicitor I contacted suggested a "forceful" letter in order to try and resolve the matter. He then added that some matters weren't worth "dying in a ditch over", which I took on board. Sadly it seems this advice may not have been offered on this ocassion, or indeed if it was, someone became so entrenched, they lost all reasoning! Providing the solictors gave due consideration to likely costs, then it is down to the person making that decison, sadly.

[Alan Ambrose]

Well the CPR says somewhere (I paraphrase) that, to encourage rational thinking, solicitors must keep their clients abreast of total cost estimates and likely cost recovery rates (from the other side).

 

I just don't like the idea that the lawyers are left, like unsupervised kids, to run off with all the gold. I believe that the legal establishment should take more ethical responsibility than it seems to.

 

In practice, the solicitor's decision choice is 'bill some more to fill up their own pension funds' or 'try and reach a compromise deal and close the dispute out'. I would like to see the solicitors take part of the hit if they let the billing get out of hand.

[markharro]

If England is like Scotland then the court will have a role in sanctioning the scale of recovery of costs from the unsuccessful opponent. Its not simply a free for all.

[Alan Ambrose]

Yeah, I think the press was (guess what) a little sensational here. I suspect that given both parties have been a greatly disproportional here with costs, that the judge will order recovery at say, 60% (and the amounts probably not made public).

 

So, say:

 

+ Mr Downing ('winner') - pays 40% of his own costs of £95K i.e. £38K. Plus he receives £32K damages to pay for fixing the knotweed.

+ Mr Henderson ('loser') - pays £32K damages + his own costs of £100K + balance of Mr Downing's costs £57K i.e. £189K.

 

So it would have been far cheaper for either of them to pay for the £16K knotweed fix directly themselves or, even better, to split the cost.

 

The great beneficiaries are, surprise, the lawyers - who do get to pocket £195K between them for arguing over a £16K problem. That is, unless the judge decides they were breaking CPR 44.4 (1), and gives them a little penalty.

 

 

[MDC]

I bought a house with knotweed at the back of the garden. The builder declared it. There was a knotweed warranty so I spoke to the knotweed company who had removed a large stand six years earlier, and was told if ever a property comes up with knotweed, it's going to be a bargain. So we made a lower offer that was rejected. A year later the builder came back and accepted our offer. We did find some regrowth which we dug out. I feel the guy from the knotweed company did us a favour. 

 

Based on the article in last week's press, I'd just tick the yes box, to remove the anxiety of not knowing. I'm not sure if "don't know" is good enough to avoid misrepresentation.