Hi, I need some input from those of you who probably know more about home renovation than I do... We recently bought a house from 1973 (Myresjöhus, if that matters...). We've done quite a bit of renovation and every tradesman (six carpenters, three electricians, and two tilers) has pointed out that houses weren't built like this (the way our house is) in 1973... We have particle board in the floor on both the ground floor (slab on grade with a raised floor, which I know is a risky construction), in the floor on the second floor, and in the attic. Is it true that this wasn't done at the time of construction? Could this be considered a hidden defect? Of course, we saw that there was particle board in the attic, but we couldn't tear up the floors before the purchase? There's nothing about this in the inspection report!
There have already been a lot of problems with the house, and we've spent several hundred thousand more than we anticipated in the first five years, so if this could be considered a hidden defect, I'd be immensely grateful!
Best regards, Ann
There have already been a lot of problems with the house, and we've spent several hundred thousand more than we anticipated in the first five years, so if this could be considered a hidden defect, I'd be immensely grateful!
Best regards, Ann
It was not forbidden to use! It's hardly a hidden defect, as that insulation method was frequently used until the 1960s, and some people surely had their own ideas about its excellence and continued.
You should have become suspicious and asked the seller when you saw that there were shavings in the attic.
You should have become suspicious and asked the seller when you saw that there were shavings in the attic.
"Error occurs when the property does not match what the seller has promised or guaranteed. The seller may have promised various things. It should be in writing to be certain it applies. What was said verbally can often be difficult to prove. It is also often questionable whether what was said verbally was to be seen as a promise or guarantee or just words without legal significance."
"Someone buying a newly built property can expect that the property is built according to current building standards, unless otherwise stated. Someone buying a property from the 1950s can expect that the property is built according to the building standards that applied at that time."
Then you might be right, but it's difficult to get justice.
"Someone buying a newly built property can expect that the property is built according to current building standards, unless otherwise stated. Someone buying a property from the 1950s can expect that the property is built according to the building standards that applied at that time."
Then you might be right, but it's difficult to get justice.
If the seller has made promises about other insulation, it's a fault. Also, one should expect the property to be built according to the building standards that applied at that time, and it wasn't shavings according to the OP's carpenter.t040288 said:
Then the property is defective according to the law.
You have to be very careful, because the buyers only had to go up to the attic and see that there was sawdust insulation. This should give an indication that sawdust insulation might occur in several places. Then the buyer should conduct a more thorough inspection. Since this was not done, it is not at all clear that the buyer can get any compensation from the seller.huggan said:
That it apparently wasn't supposed to be the insulation material in the 70s.t040288 said:
I don't think it's an argument that holds!
New regulations for thermal insulation came into effect only in 1978. Buildings constructed between this year and 1987 generally have an average u-value of about 0.4 - 0.5. Buildings constructed before 1978 have higher u-values. During the 60s and 70s, it was common to have values around 0.7.
10 cm of sawdust gives approximately a u-value of 0.73
New regulations for thermal insulation came into effect only in 1978. Buildings constructed between this year and 1987 generally have an average u-value of about 0.4 - 0.5. Buildings constructed before 1978 have higher u-values. During the 60s and 70s, it was common to have values around 0.7.
10 cm of sawdust gives approximately a u-value of 0.73
Last edited:
Unfortunately, you are wrong, if the seller has given a guarantee then the duty to investigate disappears concerning that specific matter. A seller's inspection is not a guarantee, and one is certainly not obliged to conduct an inspection. Furthermore, the duty to investigate does not matter here since OP is talking about a hidden defect. That is something that cannot be found in a regular inspection.thomas33 said:
@Huggarn: The seller talks about latent defects, but it is always an uphill battle to get it legally approved as a latent defect. Perhaps it is an invisible defect. In this case, I can't see that the seller has made any declarations.
Before you speak so confidently, I think you should read the Swedish Land Code! Particularly Chapter 4:19
According to the Swedish Land Code, the buyer has the primary responsibility to inspect the condition of the house. The buyer has a very extensive duty to investigate before purchasing a house according to the law. If the buyer has not fulfilled their duty to investigate, they cannot demand compensation, a reduction in the purchase price, or cancel the purchase due to defects that the buyer should have discovered with a thorough inspection. The buyer's duty to investigate is regulated in the law book, Swedish Land Code Chapter 4:19.
The buyer is responsible for defects that could not be discovered during a thorough inspection and that are not latent defects, but that may exist in a house due to its age or condition. We refer to these as invisible defects.
Before you speak so confidently, I think you should read the Swedish Land Code! Particularly Chapter 4:19
According to the Swedish Land Code, the buyer has the primary responsibility to inspect the condition of the house. The buyer has a very extensive duty to investigate before purchasing a house according to the law. If the buyer has not fulfilled their duty to investigate, they cannot demand compensation, a reduction in the purchase price, or cancel the purchase due to defects that the buyer should have discovered with a thorough inspection. The buyer's duty to investigate is regulated in the law book, Swedish Land Code Chapter 4:19.
The buyer is responsible for defects that could not be discovered during a thorough inspection and that are not latent defects, but that may exist in a house due to its age or condition. We refer to these as invisible defects.
We should probably sort this out a bit.thomas33 said:
I'm talking about general cases because the information here is sparse.
The insulation in the attic cannot be a hidden defect because it is visible; however, this may be the case when it comes to insulation in floor joists and walls if it wasn't a building standard at the time the house was constructed. I have not taken a stance on whether I think it is an issue worth pursuing, but I want to inform you of what applies.
Regarding commitments, what I say is true. If the seller has explicitly said something, this should hold, and there is a much smaller duty to investigate, sometimes none when it comes to the commitment. Of course, you want this in writing, but verbal is sufficient, though more difficult to prove if you end up in a dispute.
I hope you understand now thomas.
Isn't it wrong to talk about general cases here and possibly give TS false hopes, when you don't know if the seller has made any promises about anything related to the insulation?
As far as I can see, there was no building code in 1973 that specifically prohibited sawdust as insulation.
As far as I can see, there was no building code in 1973 that specifically prohibited sawdust as insulation.