Tweet
Hi all
A brief bit of background/context:
My late Great Uncle had a new porch installed in November 2012 with a 10-year transferable warranty. He died in early 2021 and left the property to his sister, who now rents the property to me and my wife. The porch roof developed a leak in September 2022 and we transferred the warranty into my name and attempted to make a warranty claim, which was refused on the grounds that there was no defect. I sent a Letter Before Claim to the firm back in March, and have now received their response.
Their response is that they believe there is no valid claim because the warranty was transferred into my name as a tenant, rather than my Great Aunt's name as the owner of the property. Indeed, the portion of the contract concerning warranty transfers states:
"If the purchaser sells the Property, the Company will on request transfer the unexpired portion of the Guarantee to the new owner provided that the nominal transfer fee is paid. The Company reserves the right to make a reasonable increase to the transfer fee on an annual basis. Any request for transfer must be made within three months of completion of the sale to allow the Company to advise the new owner of their maintenance obligations. Failing this, the Company reserve the right to charge the new owner for an inspection of the installation prior to transferring the guarantee."
I paid a fee of £150 to transfer the warranty, and the validity of the warranty (and transfer) has never been called into question until this point.
I obtained copies of the call recordings relating to the transfer, and at no point was it checked whether I was the owner, nor did I claim to be the owner. I advised the company during the call that I had 'moved into the property' rather than making any suggestion that I had purchased it or taken ownership, and was fully expecting at the time to be asked the name of the person to whom the warranty was to be transferred. This never happened, and it seems that the firm simply assumed that I was the new owner.
Are the company right to claim, or likely to succeed in claiming, that the fact that I am not the owner renders the transfer null and void? Or is the fact that the payment was made and accepted sufficient to illustrate their acceptance of the scenario and, if necessary, their acceptance of a change in the terms of the contract? None of what I said in the call recordings was inaccurate or deliberately misleading (indeed, I never set out to paint a different picture, believing that they would at some point ask for the name of the new warranty holder). Similarly, I cannot see that the company has suffered any loss or disadvantage through transferring the warranty to someone who, whilst possessing an interest in the property, is not the owner.
My belief is that the wording of the above clause is convenient rather than deliberate, if that makes sense? The drafter most likely foresaw no circumstance whereby anyone but the owner of the property would seek to benefit from the warranty and, indeed, in normal circumstances it would be utterly perverse for a landlord to assign a warranty to their tenants. Seemingly, the wording also seems to preclude (deliberately or not) the assignation of the warranty in situations where the property changes ownership but is not sold.
What are your thoughts on the matter, please?
Even if the matter looks to be weighted in the company's favour, would there be sufficient scope for me to make a reasonable argument otherwise? The company is using an external firm of solicitors, and I would envisage that their likely costs in defending the matter would probably be far in excess of the amount claimed by me. If I can make a claim that would be reasonable enough to avoid the threat of a costs order against me, I would likely go ahead in the hope that they might look to settle as the lesser of two evils. I'm pretty happy that the technical aspects of the claim stack up, so it's just a case of being able to prove (or at least submit a reasonable argument) that the warranty transfer is valid.
Thanks!
A brief bit of background/context:
My late Great Uncle had a new porch installed in November 2012 with a 10-year transferable warranty. He died in early 2021 and left the property to his sister, who now rents the property to me and my wife. The porch roof developed a leak in September 2022 and we transferred the warranty into my name and attempted to make a warranty claim, which was refused on the grounds that there was no defect. I sent a Letter Before Claim to the firm back in March, and have now received their response.
Their response is that they believe there is no valid claim because the warranty was transferred into my name as a tenant, rather than my Great Aunt's name as the owner of the property. Indeed, the portion of the contract concerning warranty transfers states:
"If the purchaser sells the Property, the Company will on request transfer the unexpired portion of the Guarantee to the new owner provided that the nominal transfer fee is paid. The Company reserves the right to make a reasonable increase to the transfer fee on an annual basis. Any request for transfer must be made within three months of completion of the sale to allow the Company to advise the new owner of their maintenance obligations. Failing this, the Company reserve the right to charge the new owner for an inspection of the installation prior to transferring the guarantee."
I paid a fee of £150 to transfer the warranty, and the validity of the warranty (and transfer) has never been called into question until this point.
I obtained copies of the call recordings relating to the transfer, and at no point was it checked whether I was the owner, nor did I claim to be the owner. I advised the company during the call that I had 'moved into the property' rather than making any suggestion that I had purchased it or taken ownership, and was fully expecting at the time to be asked the name of the person to whom the warranty was to be transferred. This never happened, and it seems that the firm simply assumed that I was the new owner.
Are the company right to claim, or likely to succeed in claiming, that the fact that I am not the owner renders the transfer null and void? Or is the fact that the payment was made and accepted sufficient to illustrate their acceptance of the scenario and, if necessary, their acceptance of a change in the terms of the contract? None of what I said in the call recordings was inaccurate or deliberately misleading (indeed, I never set out to paint a different picture, believing that they would at some point ask for the name of the new warranty holder). Similarly, I cannot see that the company has suffered any loss or disadvantage through transferring the warranty to someone who, whilst possessing an interest in the property, is not the owner.
My belief is that the wording of the above clause is convenient rather than deliberate, if that makes sense? The drafter most likely foresaw no circumstance whereby anyone but the owner of the property would seek to benefit from the warranty and, indeed, in normal circumstances it would be utterly perverse for a landlord to assign a warranty to their tenants. Seemingly, the wording also seems to preclude (deliberately or not) the assignation of the warranty in situations where the property changes ownership but is not sold.
What are your thoughts on the matter, please?
Even if the matter looks to be weighted in the company's favour, would there be sufficient scope for me to make a reasonable argument otherwise? The company is using an external firm of solicitors, and I would envisage that their likely costs in defending the matter would probably be far in excess of the amount claimed by me. If I can make a claim that would be reasonable enough to avoid the threat of a costs order against me, I would likely go ahead in the hope that they might look to settle as the lesser of two evils. I'm pretty happy that the technical aspects of the claim stack up, so it's just a case of being able to prove (or at least submit a reasonable argument) that the warranty transfer is valid.
Thanks!
Comment