| A £200 grand mistake (and more proof that the on 16:16 - Jan 26 with 1044 views | Zx1988 |
Reading the article, though, it seems that the inference is that the vendor may well have lied about the presence of knotweed, given the comments of the specialist.
"Mr Henderson claimed he could not see the knotweed because of the large bush, which also probably stunted the weed’s growth before it shot up when the shrub was cut back after Mr Downing moved in.
But the judge heard evidence that the knotweed had been previously treated with herbicide, and may have once stood at around 2m tall.
Outlining the case, Mr Downing’s barrister Tom Carter an expert said the weed had probably been in the garden since at least 2012, three years before Mr Henderson moved into the property."
With my own experience and training surrounding knotweed, I would consider it highly unlikely that you just wouldn't notice it was there for a period of at least three years.
I'd be inclined to suggest that this wasn't necessarily the mistake he tried to make it out to be. [Post edited 26 Jan 2023 16:19]
|  |
|  |
| A £200 grand mistake (and more proof that the on 16:21 - Jan 26 with 999 views | giant_stow |
| A £200 grand mistake (and more proof that the on 16:16 - Jan 26 by Zx1988 |
Reading the article, though, it seems that the inference is that the vendor may well have lied about the presence of knotweed, given the comments of the specialist.
"Mr Henderson claimed he could not see the knotweed because of the large bush, which also probably stunted the weed’s growth before it shot up when the shrub was cut back after Mr Downing moved in.
But the judge heard evidence that the knotweed had been previously treated with herbicide, and may have once stood at around 2m tall.
Outlining the case, Mr Downing’s barrister Tom Carter an expert said the weed had probably been in the garden since at least 2012, three years before Mr Henderson moved into the property."
With my own experience and training surrounding knotweed, I would consider it highly unlikely that you just wouldn't notice it was there for a period of at least three years.
I'd be inclined to suggest that this wasn't necessarily the mistake he tried to make it out to be. [Post edited 26 Jan 2023 16:19]
|
I think you could say that or you could you say that he forgot to check the behind the shed, but that ambiguity makes the judgement even harsher to my mind.
But more than anything, the claimant gets £35 grand - the lawyers the rest - why does it cost so much to sort out what appears to be a fairly basic case? ie did the garden have knotweed and did the Vendor know that? It just doesn't seem like justice is good value to me. [Post edited 26 Jan 2023 16:21]
|  |
| |
| A £200 grand mistake (and more proof that the on 16:27 - Jan 26 with 950 views | Zx1988 |
| A £200 grand mistake (and more proof that the on 16:21 - Jan 26 by giant_stow |
I think you could say that or you could you say that he forgot to check the behind the shed, but that ambiguity makes the judgement even harsher to my mind.
But more than anything, the claimant gets £35 grand - the lawyers the rest - why does it cost so much to sort out what appears to be a fairly basic case? ie did the garden have knotweed and did the Vendor know that? It just doesn't seem like justice is good value to me. [Post edited 26 Jan 2023 16:21]
|
I'd agree with you on that point - the legal fees involved are eye-watering.
Even taking into account that there would have been at least two expert witnesses involved (valuer and horticulturist), that's an unbelievable sum spent on litigation and representation. | |
| |
| A £200 grand mistake (and more proof that the on 16:45 - Jan 26 with 888 views | giant_stow |
| A £200 grand mistake (and more proof that the on 16:27 - Jan 26 by Zx1988 |
I'd agree with you on that point - the legal fees involved are eye-watering.
Even taking into account that there would have been at least two expert witnesses involved (valuer and horticulturist), that's an unbelievable sum spent on litigation and representation. |
(To be clear, the upvote isn't for agreeing with me! Its for pointing out the costs other than lawyers) | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
