Can anyone help, I'm in serious trouble !!!

[Mike001]

I built a house in 2005, moved in March 2006, I didn't take out building insurance, I built it myself. My property was put up for sale over 2 and half years ago based on the immobilier valuation. During that time there was some small subsidence to a small part of the floors, not foundations and not something that any new building wouldn't suffer due to drying out and settling this included a few normal small settlement cracks. I made the repairs to the floor subsidence.
The immobilier knew of these repairs and the problem prior. The immobilier found a buyer, the first viewing I was told to just stay in the background and let them do there job , this is why I was employing them. They get enough commission let them do there work.
Checking the law re the 10 year guarantee told me that I was liable for the main structure of the house for another 4 years or so, investigating I found if the house has visible defects then it is up to the buyer to use due diligence to find them, the buyer is under no obligation to buy if they think there will be a future problem. I learned about a law VISE CASHE, hidden defects, or something not visible to the eye, penalties regarding hiding these are deliberate and carried severe penalties, so I told the immobilier to inform the buyer about the previous subsidence so they became like a visible defect only verbal but at least the buyer would be aware of the fault and have the right to make an informed decision to buy or not, the reply was, "do u want to sell this house or not", "if you inform the client about these things they won't buy" "leave us to do our job" A week later the immobilier made an appointment to re visit the house with the same client. The immobilier informed me that they were ready to make an offer, a few days later the offer came, we negotiated and the sale was agreed between me the seller and the buyer via the immobilier. The immobilier had still not told them about the small problem with the subsidence previous even though I did insist, Their reply was, " leave it to us we will include it in the comprimis du vent, if you tell them now they may pull out of the sale".
I was called to the immobilier's office to sign document a "promise to sell". A week later I was called to the notaire's office to sign the (Compromis de Vente) I asked the immobilier if the subsidence fault had been included, she replied "NO, but you must sign" I questioned this, she said that all would be explained to me before the signing but if I refused to sign they would sue me for the commission because I had signed the promise to sell, they had done their work and found a buyer, now I must go through with the sale. I'd heard immobilier were unscrupulous but I didn't know just how far they would go to make sure of getting there commission. I listened to the notaire and the Immobilier who spoke perfect English, I understood all what was being said by the notaire. I signed the document that held me responsible for ALL future structural repairs for the remainder of the 10 years. The final contract was sent out to me on the 7th of November, due to illness I didn't get the papers until about the 15th with the signing date of the 18th, with unforeseen circumstances the client postponed the final signing until the 25th, enough time to get someone to read the document, (I don't' read french) no mention of the visible or previous subsidence because the notaire had not been informed. With the document was a letter saying that if there was anything in the contract re "éventuelles observations, translated "any comment" so I went to the notaire's office to inform him of the law I had found re the disclosure of the faults, I asked him to change the contract accordingly, these were " éventuelles observations" he refused to change the contract. I didn't know what to do, I wanted 2 things to Inform the buyer about the faults and the dishonesty of the immobilier and inform them that I should not be held liable for the faults not disclosed by my immobilier. I rang the immobilier to explain but they just kept saying that the client had sold their house, the mortgage was secured and the money deposited with the notaire, If I didn't sign I would be liable to be sued buy the buyer for not completing the sale, I would be sued by them for the loss of commission, and by the notaire for the legal fees and charges plus the court costs.
I arranged to meet at the immobiliers office the next morning, the signing was at 2pm to try and sort things out, during the meeting I was further intimated, called names and shouted at by the Immobilier in anger.
We agreed to meet with the client at the house at 1pm to go through the faults and inform them thus giving them the option to pull out of the sale before the 2pm signing if they were not happy about the faults , I gave my word that I would not peruse the client for the 10% if they didn't want to continue with the sale even though i would be at a loss. The immobilier didn't comment on this but they knew no sale , no commission. I didn't trust the immobilier now so I arranged 2 witnesses to come with me to meeting at the house to prove that I had pointed out the faults to them, and also witness that I had made the offer for them to pull out of the sale if they wanted without being penalized. The immobilier asked who the 2 people were with me I said she had not been honest and that they were there to witness the procedure that we had agreed that morning. This made her visibly angry.
I tried to explain the visible faults but the immobilier pulled the buyer to one side and told them not to go through with "this game" they then left but on parting the immobilier said"2pm at the notaires office" like a threat. Between leaving the meeting at the immobiliers office and going to the meeting at the house I visited an avocat to get advice, He advised me to postpone the signing until he had the chance to review the case, and arranged a meeting with me on the following Monday, the signing day and date was Friday the 25th. I agreed to follow his instructions. I asked the 2 witnesses to accompany me to the notare's office which they did, they were refused entry, just my self the buyer and the 2 rep's of the immobilier were allowed in the room with the notaire. I explained the situation to the notaire and made the accusation that the responsibility was with the immobilier to have informed the buyer of the visible faults and the fault regarding the small subsidence problem, I told the notaire that I had gone to the point of insisting that the client was informed before we had reached this point, he made it clear that he would not change the contract and I had to sign or suffer the consequences of legal action. I asked for a postponement to allow the time for my avocat to review the contract and the case but again he refused. He told me that the client had undergone substantial inconvience, sold their house obtained a mortgage and traveled a considerable distance to be there, I knew this so to try and help I offered them the best I could and said that they could stored there furniture in my house and stay there until we could resolve the matter, the client was not given a chance to reply, the notaire immediately said "no", and the immobilier said "don't worry, don't buy this house its a bad house and you will get nothing but problems , take legal action for the inconvience and we will find you somewhere to store your furniture and somewhere to stay until you get sorted out". The notaire then presented a document and began to read it very fast , I couldn't follow, I asked him politely to slow down and repeat several things but he refused. I said diplomatically that I wouldn't sign something I didn't understand I was in enough trouble, if he had slowed down and clarified the words I didn't understand I would have had no problem signing if I had agreed. The document was prepared to be signed in the eventuality of one of the parties not signing the final sale act. When I refused to sign this document because he had read it so fast that I hadn't understood it he slammed the file down onto the desk, threw the pen down across the table leaned back in his chair and threw his arms up into the air, saying never have I met such an idiot in 12 years of being a notaire. I understand most spoken French and I can speak so I am understood but being Irish doesn't make me an Idiot, only in the eyes of the notaire, either that or he is a racist. He then said, "you are in my house, now I am asking you to leave, and don't come back unless accompanied by an avocat" he stood, so did I and he physically escorted me to the door by my arm, I called my witnesses from the waiting room and told them what he had said, he replied" yes, all he says is true" then I left. When getting home I told my daughter what had happened, she called the immobilier, it seemed I had no choice but to sign even though I didn't agree with the contract and it was against the advice of my avocat to see if the client still wanted to go through with the purchase. However I feared the consequences that may arise, I cant imagine how I can win in a court against these dishonest immobilier and an angry notaire, I do have sympathy for the client as my daughter told the immobilier so I was prepared to go through with the sale to my detriment. My daughter was promised a return call by the her but it didn't come. I now fear the consequences of trying to be honest. Anyone who posts a reply will advise finding a good avocat, I have since received a call from the avocat who gave me advice of postponing, he has refused to take the case and so have several others, I think they will not go up against a notaire and a dishonest immobilier. I do not know what to do so if anyone can advise me of an avocat that will take the case or even advise me how I can take the case against the immobilier myself I would appreciate the help.
Thanks to all.

[Bevdeforges]

During that time there was some small subsidence to a small part of the floors, not foundations and not something that any new building wouldn't suffer due to drying out and settling this included a few normal small settlement cracks. I made the repairs to the floor subsidence.

From this description of the problem, I wonder if it's really that much of a "defect." What do you estimate the chances are of the problem re-occuring in the four years or so that you would be on the hook for repairs?

I only ask because in France there is a real subtle difference between scrupulous honesty, and what most people expect in terms of honesty. I can recall being shocked by comments in the press when Lionel Jospin first became Prime Minister here. He is apparently Protestant and there were some analyses of the difference in ethics between Protestants and Catholics - mostly summed up by saying that "Protestants are so HONEST!" (That's not to say anything about your religious background - just to point out that there is a fine line here between what "must" be disclosed and what "should" be disclosed.)

The other issue is, I suppose, have you actually changed your mind about wanting to sell the house? I'm fairly certain that's what the immobilier and the notaire are thinking.
Cheers,
Bev

[Marianne2010]

The main issue here is that despite was most people think, the sale is done exactly the moment the buyer's offer has been accepted (the simple letter written by hand with a price, an item and a date and a seller and a buyer is legally binding in France). So as soon as the offer was accepted by you it was to late to inform the buyer and you became responsible under the law. The rest of the process after the offer acceptance is pure paperwork to make sure that no official is claiming the house, that nothing legal (asbestos, lead...) is affecting the house, and that the buyer can get the money to pay.
If I sum up your story:
- you know that as any buiding entreprise, you're liable for almost anything that happens in the 10 years after building, if it concerns the building itself. The 10 year period starts when the house is considered finished ie when the owner signs the réception to the builder. In your case, the date is probably when you moved in and might even be discussed to be at a later date as, being the builder, you might have moved in before finishing the house (adding a new room, for example)
- you are also liable under the vice caché law which basically makes you responsible for anything discovered after the sale (ie not written in the contract) that would alter the use or price of the house, even if you didn't try to cover it up
- you encoutered pretty vile people in terms of estate and notaire so were not able to point out the issue to the buyer, in word or written. Anyway, as you went through an agency, you would be liable to talk to the buyer directly, especially if it breaks the sale, and the estate can go after you for breaking the contract, and the buyer too as it would be seen as a way of pushing them out and get the 10%
My advice at that point is to back up from the sale and start from the beginning. Read the compromis to see how you back up. Have somebody, French building professional, have a look at the house to see how you might be liable (because finally here the issue is to know precisely and legally what kind of defect you're dealing with). Make the repairs if possible and necessary. Find a new estate or put the house in the market by yourself. Find a new notaire.
Whatever you do now, do not sign anything more without taking legal advice. But as the delays are clearly explained in the compromis, hurry to take this advice soon. Make you lawyer talk to the estate and the notaire, do not try alone anymore.
I am guessing from you post that you already know those two decisions.
Marianne

[Mike001]

Originally Posted by Marianne2010

The main issue here is that despite was most people think, the sale is done exactly the moment the buyer's offer has been accepted (the simple letter written by hand with a price, an item and a date and a seller and a buyer is legally binding in France). So as soon as the offer was accepted by you it was to late to inform the buyer and you became responsible under the law. The rest of the process after the offer acceptance is pure paperwork to make sure that no official is claiming the house, that nothing legal (asbestos, lead...) is affecting the house, and that the buyer can get the money to pay.
If I sum up your story:
- you know that as any buiding entreprise, you're liable for almost anything that happens in the 10 years after building, if it concerns the building itself. The 10 year period starts when the house is considered finished ie when the owner signs the réception to the builder. In your case, the date is probably when you moved in and might even be discussed to be at a later date as, being the builder, you might have moved in before finishing the house (adding a new room, for example)
- you are also liable under the vice caché law which basically makes you responsible for anything discovered after the sale (ie not written in the contract) that would alter the use or price of the house, even if you didn't try to cover it up
- you encoutered pretty vile people in terms of estate and notaire so were not able to point out the issue to the buyer, in word or written. Anyway, as you went through an agency, you would be liable to talk to the buyer directly, especially if it breaks the sale, and the estate can go after you for breaking the contract, and the buyer too as it would be seen as a way of pushing them out and get the 10%
My advice at that point is to back up from the sale and start from the beginning. Read the compromis to see how you back up. Have somebody, French building professional, have a look at the house to see how you might be liable (because finally here the issue is to know precisely and legally what kind of defect you're dealing with). Make the repairs if possible and necessary. Find a new estate or put the house in the market by yourself. Find a new notaire.
Whatever you do now, do not sign anything more without taking legal advice. But as the delays are clearly explained in the compromis, hurry to take this advice soon. Make you lawyer talk to the estate and the notaire, do not try alone anymore.
I am guessing from you post that you already know those two decisions.
Marianne

Hi Marianne, Thank you for your reply, the real issue here is I didn't sign because the buyer had the right to know about any faults visible or Vise cashe, the seller, (namely the Immobilier employed by me by contract ) should have informed the buyer under the law Quote" The seller is obliged to tell the purchasers of anything about the property that might affect their decision to buy. For example you should tell them if the property is not on mains drainage, if it has any significant damage or defects and whether there are any nuisances in the area. you must inform the purchasers if any dangerous substances have ever been stored there or if there is any pollution or anything that is harmful to the environment on the land. You must also tell them if the property has been affected by a disaster which led to an insurance indemnity being paid in respect of one of the risks existing in the area" the immobilier did not tell the buyers. They were instructed to do so by me there employer by contract, they didn't for fear of loosing the sale thus loosing their commission.
Even though I am still responsible to stand over the faults for the rest of the 10years the buyer has to be informed. There are serious penalties for non disclosure of vise cashe.
But the Immobilier conned me to sign with threats to sue if i didn't.
Now because the signing date has passed its to late according to the Notaire and i should expect legal action against me from the 3 parties involved.
I want to take the Immobilier to court but i dont have the money for the legal proceedings, i will go to the legal aid on Monday to see if they can help, I fear that these crooked liers are going to take me to the cleaners.
Best Regards Mike001

[Marianne2010]

Normally when the estate agency accepted to take your house for sale, you signed a contract with them. I'm sorry as I ask for more clarification : did the contract specify the defect or was it a standard one with very few blanks to fill? If the first case, it's your word against theirs as they can claim they were not informed about the defect by you in due time.
The "con" part I don't really know, as as I stated before, as soon as you agreed to sign the buyer's offer the responsiblity shifted from the agency to you. The other papers (promesse de vente, compromis de vente, acte authentique) are just confirmations and formalize the process and the eventual way out if somebody wants to bail out. So if you signed in good faith the offer made by the buyer then felt you were threatened to sign the promesse, compromis... it doesn't matter, the first binding document is the offer that you signed. At that point it was already too late.
You're right in seeking advice, take all your documents with you at the legal aid. Even all the receipts regarding the building of the house. I see many points that I would use in arguing if I was the one taking legal action action you, and it starts right here. Of course, I also seem to see what I could use if I was on your side. The Notaire seems to have lied to you about the process and delays. It is not "too late" because you didn't sign the acte authentique... it was too late the moment you signed the offer. So pressuring you has no point now. Sorry if I keep repeating that, but this is the main issue: you and the buyer were engaged when you signed the letter of offer transmitted to you by the agency, whatever happened next.
Marianne

[Mike001]

Originally Posted by Bevdeforges

From this description of the problem, I wonder if it's really that much of a "defect." What do you estimate the chances are of the problem re-occuring in the four years or so that you would be on the hook for repairs?

I only ask because in France there is a real subtle difference between scrupulous honesty, and what most people expect in terms of honesty. I can recall being shocked by comments in the press when Lionel Jospin first became Prime Minister here. He is apparently Protestant and there were some analyses of the difference in ethics between Protestants and Catholics - mostly summed up by saying that "Protestants are so HONEST!" (That's not to say anything about your religious background - just to point out that there is a fine line here between what "must" be disclosed and what "should" be disclosed.)

The other issue is, I suppose, have you actually changed your mind about wanting to sell the house? I'm fairly certain that's what the immobilier and the notaire are thinking.
Cheers,

Hi Bev, Thanks for your reply, In answer to your question, No I haven't changed my mind, the house is 200 sq meters I live alone, I'm like a pea in a can in that house, I wouldn't have been trying to sell for the last 2 and a half years if i was going to pull out at the last minute but the law does state, Quote The seller is obliged to tell the purchasers of anything about the property that might affect their decision to buy. For example you should tell them if the property is not on mains drainage, if it has any significant damage or defects and whether there are any nuisances in the area. you must inform the purchasers if any dangerous substances have ever been stored there or if there is any pollution or anything that is harmful to the environment on the land. You must also tell them if the property has been affected by a disaster which led to an insurance indemnity being paid in respect of one of the risks existing in the area.
The problem I face now is i have the 3 parties against me for not signing and according to the notaire now its to late so i can expect legal action, i'v heard stories of what could be the possible outcome, i fear they will take me to the cleaners.
The question i ask our readers is simply this, have you ever been conned when buying something, of course the answer is yes, how did it make you feel? how much money did you lose? This buyer was paying out her life's savings from a life's work, i believe she had the right to the truth and the immobilier had no morals about not informing her for fear of loosing the sale and their commission.
Now I'm in the buyers position, I believe I stand to loose my life's savings in the house, here in France if a judgement is made against a person by the courts and they cant pay, all assets are seized and sold for the value of the judgment or by auction. In fact i'v been told that the first thing that may happen is the courts will put a charge on the house so nothing can be done with it until judgment has been finalized.
Also in my account of what happened re the post i made re Can anyone help, I'm in serious trouble !!! because the posting was so long i had to edit it down to be able to post it.
One thing i didn't say was that the immobiliers in this close knit area even though are rivals do still work together, quite often a seller gives the mandate to several agents immobilier. One thing that i was told by my immobilier obviously with no witness was that they would make sure that no other agency would take the property onto there books, so i would never sell the house. I suppose if i still have it after this mess is cleared up i can always try to sell it myself.
Just as a final note, regarding your quote on honesty and religion, whether i am a religious man or not is not relevant, its my belief that honesty is the best policy and i practice it in all aspects of my life, whether this has its rewards from god is not for me to say but its how i choose to live. I just hope that when facing the courts they can see the honesty in my account of what happened, if not then it's not going to be a very good day for me.
For anyone following this story, I can honestly say I'm not looking for a sympathy vote just genuine replies that may help in the resolution of my problem.

Best Regards Mike 001

[Mike001]

Originally Posted by Marianne2010

Normally when the estate agency accepted to take your house for sale, you signed a contract with them. I'm sorry as I ask for more clarification : did the contract specify the defect or was it a standard one with very few blanks to fill? If the first case, it's your word against theirs as they can claim they were not informed about the defect by you in due time.
The "con" part I don't really know, as as I stated before, as soon as you agreed to sign the buyer's offer the responsiblity shifted from the agency to you. The other papers (promesse de vente, compromis de vente, acte authentique) are just confirmations and formalize the process and the eventual way out if somebody wants to bail out. So if you signed in good faith the offer made by the buyer then felt you were threatened to sign the promesse, compromis... it doesn't matter, the first binding document is the offer that you signed. At that point it was already too late.
You're right in seeking advice, take all your documents with you at the legal aid. Even all the receipts regarding the building of the house. I see many points that I would use in arguing if I was the one taking legal action action you, and it starts right here. Of course, I also seem to see what I could use if I was on your side. The Notaire seems to have lied to you about the process and delays. It is not "too late" because you didn't sign the acte authentique... it was too late the moment you signed the offer. So pressuring you has no point now. Sorry if I keep repeating that, but this is the main issue: you and the buyer were engaged when you signed the letter of offer transmitted to you by the agency, whatever happened next.
Marianne

Thanks once again Marianne, I fully understand what you are saying, I shouldn't have signed, the "con" was on the part of the trusted immobilier and they did a good job keeping on the pressure.
The contract was a straight mandate exclusive however when engaging a professional service to work on my behalf it's normal that a person has faith in that company and the service they provide, the law is the law and immobilier surely have an ethical code, they broke the law by not disclosing the known faults even after i told them to do so, the immobilier was 100% aware of he problem and I can prove that even though its partially my word over their's but there are witnesses to show they were aware. Even if they denied being told by me which i'm sure they will the responsibility was with them to disclose all known faults as they were the sellers quite often having visits in my absence.
Also, I am afraid you are right re the responsibility passing to me when i put pen to paper.

With regard to bailing out it wouldn't seem logical that a person would want to loose a sale after trying to sell for 2 and a half years, i live alone in the house of 200 sq meters, i'm like a pea in a can. I just wanted to do every thing by the book to have no repercussions on me re the law for non disclosure of faults be they visible or vise cashe.
You made the point . Quote "I see many points that I would use in arguing if I was the one taking legal action you, and it starts right here", Sorry I don't understand, the points you see are they for the advantage of the 3 parties against me or are they points of argument that may help me. If they are points that you would use in your defense if it was you in this situation i would very much be interested in hearing them. I'm not being cynical but at the moment miracles are a bit thin on the ground and i cant find my magic wand so i really could use all the help i can get.
Sincere Thanks once again, Mike001

[Mike001]

Originally Posted by Mike001

Thanks once again Marianne, I fully understand what you are saying, I shouldn't have signed, the "con" was on the part of the trusted immobilier and they did a good job keeping on the pressure.
The contract was a straight mandate exclusive however when engaging a professional service to work on my behalf it's normal that a person has faith in that company and the service they provide, the law is the law and immobilier surely have an ethical code, they broke the law by not disclosing the known faults even after i told them to do so, the immobilier was 100% aware of he problem and I can prove that even though its partially my word over their's but there are witnesses to show they were aware. Even if they denied being told by me which i'm sure they will the responsibility was with them to disclose all known faults as they were the sellers quite often having visits in my absence.
Also, I am afraid you are right re the responsibility passing to me when i put pen to paper.

With regard to bailing out it wouldn't seem logical that a person would want to loose a sale after trying to sell for 2 and a half years, i live alone in the house of 200 sq meters, i'm like a pea in a can. I just wanted to do every thing by the book to have no repercussions on me re the law for non disclosure of faults be they visible or vise cashe.
You made the point . Quote "I see many points that I would use in arguing if I was the one taking legal action you, and it starts right here", Sorry I don't understand, the points you see are they for the advantage of the 3 parties against me or are they points of argument that may help me. If they are points that you would use in your defense if it was you in this situation i would very much be interested in hearing them. I'm not being cynical but at the moment miracles are a bit thin on the ground and i cant find my magic wand so i really could use all the help i can get.
Sincere Thanks once again, Mike001

Hi Marianne,
sorry to bother you again with my burden, i was just doing a little re search, the agency immobilier in question are part of a very large franchise, in my experience of franchise they would be tied to a strict code of ethics for the purpose of not giving the company a bad reputation by breaking them,one site i found advised me to go direct to the company head office to lodge a complaint i have just sent an e-mail to them with my complaint even though not in detail, i understand that this does not alter the responsibility over the signing however i need a starting point, i cant do anything today re legal action being Saturday but i can begin an offensive on other fronts, maybe i'm throwing rocks at mountains taking on an enormousness multi-national company but i will do as much as i can to prevent others finding them self in my situation, this may sound like revenge but i can assure you it's not.
Thanks once again, Mike001

[Marianne2010]

Originally Posted by Mike001

Hi Marianne,
sorry to bother you again with my burden, i was just doing a little re search, the agency immobilier in question are part of a very large franchise, in my experience of franchise they would be tied to a strict code of ethics for the purpose of not giving the company a bad reputation by breaking them,one site i found advised me to go direct to the company head office to lodge a complaint i have just sent an e-mail to them with my complaint even though not in detail, i understand that this does not alter the responsibility over the signing however i need a starting point, i cant do anything today re legal action being Saturday but i can begin an offensive on other fronts, maybe i'm throwing rocks at mountains taking on an enormousness multi-national company but i will do as much as i can to prevent others finding them self in my situation, this may sound like revenge but i can assure you it's not.
Thanks once again, Mike001

I wouldn't bet on the reputation and so on. The estate market is a "shark only" one. The guys in the agencies are not well paid and get their wages from their sales, and usually the more known the franchise, the less the fixed wages... which in fact makes some sense. Anyway I'm no gonna weep on the estate agents, some ot them I have run into were really nasty.
In France, a judge will rule first on the fact that the rules that regulate the process have been followed, and then, if he can't rule on that, he will adress the content of the issue and will do so by hearing experts as he can only judge on law, not on other matters.
So the first part is the process one: you have to read everything you signed and see what your options are at this moment.
The second part is the fact one: you have to get an expert that will evaluate the reality of the issue here. Does the defect threaten to worsen ? Lessen the price of the house ? Impact the viability of the house ? You are still the owner and you can still ask an expert to come. The point is to first secure yourself by having somebody vouching that the defect is not an issue. Second to get an external and professional opinion that a judge would hear if it became necessary. As you build the house yourself, I strongly advise that you let the expert examine everything, not only the defect per se.
So at this point 2 outcomes: 1. the expert says "no problem", and you go on with the sale. If anthing happens, you will be able to sue the expert for mistake and even malpractice ; 2. the expert says "problem" then you face 2 options again and would need the advice of a lawyer to choose the best, as you would need perfect knowledge of the law and to read the papers you already signed to see what binds you in them.
First one (the best IMO) you back off from the sale.
Second one (not to be done before getting legal advice), you send the report to the estate agency with a notified letter asking them to relay to the buyer as you probably are not allowed to talk directly to him (but that last fact depends on what kind of mandat you signed when you gave the house for sale to the agency). In the same letter, you propose to reduce the price of the house in order to accomodate for the work the buyer will have to make or to delay the final sale until you have made the repairs.
I understand what you said about having a house on the market for a long time, and the estate agencies being close despite being competitors. Anyway, it seems to me that your choice is between losing the house and more if there is a trial and you lose it or being stuck with a house that you'll have to spend some money on to make repairs and lose a little of money by selling it at a lower price you would like just in order to get rid of it. So it's between the risk of losing all and more or losing a little (usually 10% of the house price + interests that are usually small, the agency fee and maybe some money to the notaire in the worst case scenario).
Marianne

[Mike001]

Originally Posted by Marianne2010

I wouldn't bet on the reputation and so on. The estate market is a "shark only" one. The guys in the agencies are not well paid and get their wages from their sales, and usually the more known the franchise, the less the fixed wages... which in fact makes some sense. Anyway I'm no gonna weep on the estate agents, some ot them I have run into were really nasty.
In France, a judge will rule first on the fact that the rules that regulate the process have been followed, and then, if he can't rule on that, he will adress the content of the issue and will do so by hearing experts as he can only judge on law, not on other matters.
So the first part is the process one: you have to read everything you signed and see what your options are at this moment.
The second part is the fact one: you have to get an expert that will evaluate the reality of the issue here. Does the defect threaten to worsen ? Lessen the price of the house ? Impact the viability of the house ? You are still the owner and you can still ask an expert to come. The point is to first secure yourself by having somebody vouching that the defect is not an issue. Second to get an external and professional opinion that a judge would hear if it became necessary. As you build the house yourself, I strongly advise that you let the expert examine everything, not only the defect per se.
So at this point 2 outcomes: 1. the expert says "no problem", and you go on with the sale. If anthing happens, you will be able to sue the expert for mistake and even malpractice ; 2. the expert says "problem" then you face 2 options again and would need the advice of a lawyer to choose the best, as you would need perfect knowledge of the law and to read the papers you already signed to see what binds you in them.
First one (the best IMO) you back off from the sale.
Second one (not to be done before getting legal advice), you send the report to the estate agency with a notified letter asking them to relay to the buyer as you probably are not allowed to talk directly to him (but that last fact depends on what kind of mandat you signed when you gave the house for sale to the agency). In the same letter, you propose to reduce the price of the house in order to accomodate for the work the buyer will have to make or to delay the final sale until you have made the repairs.
I understand what you said about having a house on the market for a long time, and the estate agencies being close despite being competitors. Anyway, it seems to me that your choice is between losing the house and more if there is a trial and you lose it or being stuck with a house that you'll have to spend some money on to make repairs and lose a little of money by selling it at a lower price you would like just in order to get rid of it. So it's between the risk of losing all and more or losing a little (usually 10% of the house price + interests that are usually small, the agency fee and maybe some money to the notaire in the worst case scenario).
Marianne

Marianne, thanks once again, you really have been very helpful, and thank you so much for taking the time to help me with your advice,
The small cracks in the house are superficial, they are nothing that any new built house would not suffer as the weight of a house would put on the freshly opened ground, there are only a couple and are almost un-detectable, the issue with the floors are also from the same cause, natural settlement and the drying out of materials over the first couple of years the house was built.
I have seen 2 year old houses with far worse problems due to settlement and drying out. These things are to be expected.
I fully agree with you regarding getting an expert to look at and make a report on the entire house. Like you said this resolves 2 problems it covers me in the eventuality of the problem re-occurring (which i don't think it will) and it re assures the buyer.
If there is a problem then it would be far cheaper for me to rectify that than pay the 10% plus the immobilier and notaire fees.
The only problem I have now is that the date for signing has passed, i didn't sign, the buyer will probably look for some kind of compensation from me for the inconvenience suffered by not being able to move in on that date. That is if she still wants to buy the house. I say this because in the notaires office when i laid the fault at the door of the immobilier by not informing her, (the buyer) of the faults they turned on me knowing they would still get their commission by legal proceedings, when i asked for a postponement i made the offer of her moving her furniture in and staying in the house until this matter was sorted out but the notaire immediately said no and the immobilier said don't buy this house you will get nothing but trouble we will find you a place to store your furniture and a place to stay. After i was ejected from the notaires office into the hall i saw all of the remaining party enter into the room of the notaire, i can imagine that over the next few hours of the immobilier spending with her finding her a place to store her things and a place to stay that they probably turned her off my house and me with more lies.
With respect to the buyer, all i was trying to do was warn her of the things that the immobilier should have warned her about but didn't so they took away her right to make an informed decision.
Any one with an ounce of sense can see here that the immobilier will get paid there commission one way or another, i just hope the buyer realizes' this is their only goal. The immobilier does not care about the buyer or me, they care only about them selves and getting paid.
I really can't imagine the immobilier arranging the buyer a place to store her furniture and finding her a place to stay for free. I'm sure there was some SMALL benefit in it for them.
I do not have any contact details for the buyer and i'm sure the immobilier won't give them to me but if i just had the chance to talk to her for a few minutes then i think i could let her understand my side and show her that the immobilier are the ones at fault. However this isn't going to happen.
If the immobilier as i now have seen them in the real light have poisoned the buyer against me then for sure there will be a court case and like you have said the judge can only rule on points of law and evidence. In this case i think my goose is cooked. I will get an expert to review the property and seek legal advice regarding bringing the immobilier to court.
One thing i do have in my favour is that each month the immobilier sent me a copy of the potential buyers that visited the house, i can probably contact them to see if the faults were declared to them, logic says that they were not, so hopefully the point of law that states that they should have been will help in my defense.

Marianne, thanks once again for your help and my best regards, Mike001