Thats obligatory to empty the property once the contract is signed for or within a short specified period agreed by the purchaser because she is not the owner any longer and should hand over all the keys. Silly moo and just the sort of vendor that is a nightmare.
Thankyou I always appreciate input from people on this site. Regarding my situation; the owner declared during the meeting, the signing of the acte de vente there was a leak which her friend would fix. At the same meeting she signed à déclaration that to her knowledge the system sanitaire is in bon etait. It is written in the diagnostics as in bon etait. Therefore it is being considered as either ignorance or avoidance of responsibility. Even though she claims to not have lived in the house for 2 years it is written in the acte as her maison principle. Either way she is responsible.
The légal process takes à long time but the outcome dépends as always on evidence. My notaire is in négociation with her notaire for a settlement amicable. I am not afraid of courts. Been here before. Grrrr.
instant cause for concern…
unless the friend is a Plumber with a Siret Number… 
can’t believe this wasn’t clarified and followed-through by the Notaire or anyone for that matter.
The worrying thing is the fact that she gave a name of a person at the signing ( which was noted down) and said she did not have their telephone number. After I insisted on getting devis from 2 macons with décennale ie 10 year insurance before any work was done she then came back and said she had arranged for her artisan to come and fix it it ( he exists on Allovoisin offering gardening and a bit of maçonnerie) ; without my permission) My friend spoke to her by phone and told her to cancel rhe rdv. She went ahead with it and then gave the name of a company run by the same person (with correct insurance) informed me as I had blocked the rdv I was therefore responsible. I have a record of every singe conversation and photos. But its the the details in the contract that count at the moment.
Does the fact that the ex owner declared her knowledge of the leak verbally but it is not written anywhere count as legally binding? Surely not if I can deny everything she has said? Not that I would!
Why not talk things through with a completely different Notaire ???
I’ll step back now as I really don’t think I have any more advice to give…
Good luck.
Dodgy seller and incompetent Notaire = disaster waiting to happen.
Hopefully, the Notaires can reach an amicable agreement but if they can’t I’d think very hard before committing to years in court and the stress that goes with it.
2 Likes
Dear Fiona, having read through all of the posts & comments, I think a little clarity will help. You are bundling all sorts of things together, but only one of them matters. Forget ‘vice caché’; 'maison pricipal; holiday use; asbestos tiles reported on at the outset; and (most of all) court claims.
You say “I am not afraid of courts”. Have you ever been involved in the French legal process? I have - and would advise you not to go there. It’s a world of it’s own, unreleated to anything you might have known in the UK.
So - what actually is the problem? And why will it cost €7,000 to fix it?
You say at first it’s ‘a 10cm leak in the waste pipe’. Then ‘it widens to 30cm’. I assume you mean a split? What does your devis define as necessary, to replace a section of faulty plastic pipe? How on earth can it cost this much to do?
I read it as a 10cm damp patch, later increasing to 30cm and I’m assuming from the description that the pipe itself is buried/inaccessible and will need to be dug out - hence the cost.
Edit: in fact reading again I think this is right - but that the pipe must leave the cellar, presumably heading vertically downwards and the damp patch spreads out on the floor where it does so.
I confess that I can’t see how it is “vice cache” if it was pointed out by the immobilier.
The whole situation seems to be a nightmare and I sympathise with Fiona - BUT surely there is a bit of a failure of due dilligence.
Was this after you bought the house. If so how did they access the house without your permission - you said the leak was in the cellar.
Which is not surprising if it is a leaking drain - as presumably if there is no one in residence the drain in question is not carrying any water.
I guess Notaires (like everyone and everything else one deals with in life) are variable in quality - but it does not dispell the impression that French Notaires on the whole are interested in making sure the title is transferred, that the state gets its cut and that the contract is legally sound and binding - but little else. In particular if there is an issue then it is up to the purchaser to insist on the right clauses suspensives in the compromis and does not sign the acte de vente until pending works have been carried out to their satisfaction.
1 Like
Thanks Billy - that looks like a clearer summary and presentation of facts and events.
Regarding the function of the notaire: I have bought three houses over the years, with three different notaires. Each time the notaire stated clearly “You are buying this property as you have seen it; no guarantees are given; unless either you or the seller request specific clauses to be recorded in the Compromis or Acte de vente”. In other words, the notaire has no responsibility (or, therefore, liability) to make any assessment regarding the property unless he/she is made aware of something by either the buyer or the seller. It is the basis on which only one notaire is normally used. [It is also why every buyer should visit the local Mairie and ask to see the Local Plan. This is the only way you can be sure to find out about what’s happened/will happen around your proposed new home. The notaire is only concerned with the Title of one property].
In this instance it appears that Fiona did make the notaire aware of a drain leak problem - but also appears to have said that she was satisfied with the seller’s proposal to ‘get a friend to fix it’. The notaire had a duty to check that this had been done before all the money was paid over to the seller. After the event, it also appears that Fiona became aware of the (limited) value of using a tradesman with decennial insurance; and changed her mind about how to resolve the problem.
If this scenario is correct it does not look as though either she or the notaire can now retrospectively get the seller to foot the bill. And nor would a French court support such a claim.
2 Likes
Do you mean “without decennial insurance”?
1 Like
No - as Stella has said, the essential element is to use a Siret-registered artisan. The insurance that they are all required to have actually has limited value. [eg. If a premium is not payed, the insurer won’t pay; the insurer will only consider claims for the specific work(s) done by the artisan himself (not the materials or equipment installed); if the artisan goes bust, then ‘bon courage’ - especially if the last premium wasn’t paid].
So - if Fiona has a section of the drain replaced, the only benefit she gets is if that section leaks within 10 years, and as a direct consequence of the workmanship; and if the artisan is still in business, and paying his premiums.
Also if the client of the deçennel-insured artisan does not pay their bill, the insurance is also null and void so the client has no comeback.
Ah, I see what you mean.
I can believe that the insurers might behave this way but it is incredibly disappointing if they do - the policy is there to protect the consumer after all and logically (not that logic matters for much in these cases) it should suffice that the insurance was in place and premiums up to date when the work was done.
So, not plumbing and drainage?
Surely the point of signing of the acte de vente is when the property becomes yours and your responsibility.
But you said this was mentioned during the signing of the acte de vent - so, in front of the notaire?
Indeed.
It seems the friend has a siret, but not for plumbing - just “gardening and a bit of maçonnerie”.
I don’t mean to be unkind Fiona but it seems that you went into the transaction knowing (having had it pointed out by the immobilier) that there was potentially a problem with the drainage, did not get that looked at before going forward with the AdV, accepting when you signed the final acte that the vendor would get it looked at by someone with unknown qualifications to do so without insisting that funds were withheld to cover the work, didn’t allow that person access to do the work, finally late in the day got a couple of devis but are finding that the cost is going to be considerably more than you bargained for and are trying to chase the vendor to pay for the work.
Apologies if that isn’t a fair summation and I hope that your notaire is correct that you do have a claim - but personally, I can’t quite see how.
2 Likes
Hi it seems this topic has generated discussion between members which is good. Just will say however that I have not been understood sorry if not clear but no I did not agree to a friend doing the work. I insisted on two devis from two macons with a 10 year guarentee which does count . Will be checkingout on this conversation now as it has taken off on a different path. Thanks for all your input.