‘Not having a survey on a French property cost us 14,000 euros’

Published 17th Sep 2007

A British couple who believed they had found their ideal retirement home in France have lost €14,000 after they pulled out of the deal at the last minute. The couple John and Jill – not their real names – discovered problems with the supposedly idyllic house just days before they were supposed to complete on the purchase.

In particular the couple, who had already signed the initial sale contract the compromis de vente and handed over a deposit, were unnerved to find that their electricity and water supplies and telephone line appeared to be shared by a neighbouring property they were not buying.

And on the morning they were supposed to complete the purchase – the acte de vente – John and Jill reluctantly decided they had no choice but to pull out. ‘We have now lost our 14000 euros. The moral of the story is get a survey - despite what anyone will tell you,’ says John.
‘ We were actually buying a house with a dependence for which we had no rights but possibly lots of obligations if things went wrong.’


Perfect place

The story started in early 2007 when the couple, who had decided they wanted to retire to France, found what seemed like the perfect place in the west of France. It was for sale through a local notaire.

‘The house was set on a piece of land almost an acre in size with a lovely garden and the surroundings were idyllic,’ says John. ‘We visited the house a second time the next day without the Notaire and said that we would like to buy the house.’

On 30 April the pair returned to France to sign the compromis de vente and pay the €14,000 deposit. ‘It was explained that there was a seven day cooling off period after which we would lose our money if we did not go,’ says John.

Completion was set for 1 August 2007 and on 30 July John and Jill returned to have a third look at the property – they had been again in June – and to ask some questions.

‘The first question I asked was to be shown the electricity and water meters, as we would need to read them,’ says John. However when the vendor showed John the meter he saw that there was another spur that led to a small property 30 metres away. This was not part of the transaction and the vendor was going to develop it as a small home.


Water meter

John was told that the supply to the other building was going to be disconnected. However when John asked the owner where the water meter was he said he didn’t know.

The couple were now worried and the following day they met the vendor again at the property to air their concerns.

‘The vendor offered to pay the electricity for a month until it was sorted out. After a discussion between my wife and I we agreed to this,’ says John.

‘We then asked if he had found out where the water meter was and he took me into the garden and moved away rough coverings to expose a sunken meter to which were attached three pipes, one of which went through the meter to the small house. I pointed this out but he said not to worry, it will be removed by the following morning – the day of completion.’


Septic tank

Further issues came up too. The vendor had said he had wanted to keep the existing phone number for himself for business reasons but the phone line was still connected and working in the house John and Jill were buying. Then the couple were told that the septic tank for the small neighbouring property had no inspection hatch because it ‘never needed emptying’.

‘While I was talking to the vendor , his wife said to my wife, that she would arrange for the septic tank in the main property to be emptied hopefully by the end of the week,’ says John. ‘Rather than reassuring us, this made us more suspicious as up to that moment, no mention had been made of this, and we were due to sign the next afternoon.’

After a sleepless night the couple finally reached a decision – they would have to pull out of the deal because of the uncertainty and because they felt they had not been getting straight answers.

‘On the morning of the day of the purchase, I spoke to the owner and told him I felt it was impossible to proceed, as I was not confident that everything was as it should be,’ says John.


No trust

‘The vendors were obviously upset, and I explained to them that I no longer had trust in him as I felt he had lied by omission regarding the problems with the water and electricity and had prevaricated regarding the telephone and could give no explanation as to how he was going to settle the matter of his telephone in our property.

‘I also told him that I thought his explanation of the septic tank for the small property being invisible, and never needing to be emptied was unbelievable.’

Their next act was to see the local bank manager and explain why they would not be needing the funds to complete the deal. ‘Her first reaction was of incredulity as she said it was illegal to have one electricity meter for two properties and in fact it was a criminal offence in France,’ recalls John.


Court action


Next they went to see the notaire. ‘He agreed that a combined electricity meter was illegal and a criminal offence and that it would have to be reported to the authorities,’ says John.

‘He also said that under these circumstances the dispute would have to be settled in a court which would be in about six months time and that we would have to engage a barrister. This would cost about 2,000 euros and if we lost we would be liable for all costs.’ Their other options, John and Jill were told, were to finalise the purchase or lose their deposit.

‘We were later told we had until 25 August to complete or we would forfeit our deposit,’ says John. ‘We have now lost that deposit.’

The couple feel let down not just by the owners but by the notaire’s office. ‘We feel he did not fulfil his duty of care to us as his office were also our estate agents - but he had obviously not satisfied himself concerning the services at the property,’ says John.

Survey

‘We feel that the Notaire did not accurately describe what we were buying as it was not a freestanding house without encumbrances,’ he adds. He and Jill now wish they had got an expert surveyor to look over the property before they signed for it.

'In my view disregard anything you read about not needing a survey in France,' says John. 'This lesson cost us £10000. A survey is always money well spent I now know.'


British surveyor Brian Hersee, who is based in the Poitou-Charentes region, advices that people should get professional advice on the state of a property as early as possible in the process – and that means before signing the compromis de vente. ‘Otherwise you are putting too much reliance on the seven-day cooling off period,’ he says. ‘If there are any obvious problems these should come up in a survey.’

Source: ' French Entree '

View All Latest Articles