Are moths vermin?

[Simon Parker]

An interesting question before the high court as Iya Patarkatsishvili
and Dr Yevhen Hunyak sue William Woodward-Fisher from whom they bought a
seven-bedroom early Victorian mansion in Notting Hill for £32.5m in May
2019.

Their claim is that the mansion is infested with millions of moths,
infesting the wool insulation behind the walls and ceilings, which are
destroying clothing, and ruining their wine with, at one point, moths
landing on the couple and their two children's toothbrushes, cutlery and
food, with glasses of wine having to be tipped away as moths were
floating in them.

John McGhee KC, for the couple, said they were swatting away about 100
moths a day and even after intensive sprays and expert treatment still
kill around 35 moths a day.

Their claim is that Woodward-Fisher is either guilty of fraudulent
misrepresentation or was negligent in failing to disclose previous moth
infestations when answering pre-sale questions about the possibility of
"vermin" in the house.

The couple are seeking more than £36m which includes Woodward-Fisher
buying back the house and compensating them for all expenses and
inconvenience suffered. They further claim it will cost in excess of
£10m to replace all the woollen insulation in the building.

Woodward-Fisher, on the other hand, denies all claims insisting that he
gave honest and full replies on the pre-sale form and that, as far as he
knew, any previous moth problems had been eliminated by the time of the
move. He also disputes the cost of remedial work arguing that the more
accurate repair bill would be £162,652.

Jonathan Seitler KC, for Woodward-Fisher, said he was honest when
answering the question about possible previous "vermin infestations", as
Woodward-Fisher told his solicitor they had experienced problems with
moths only to be assured that moths were not vermin and not relevant to
the question.

Part of the legal debate therefore hinges on whether moths are vermin
and have to be included when answering the question about "vermin
infestations".

McGhee told Mr Justice Fancourt that Woodward-Fisher was well aware of
the presence and cause of the infestation as treatment had necessitated
Woodward-Fisher and his family to check into a hotel and remove their
dog from the property to clear the way for a major spray to treat the
problem.

Seitler said his client had enlisted pest control in 2018 who "appeared
to have succeeded in their task by July 2018", and moths were no longer
a problem when they moved out in 2019.

The couple have taken a multi-pronged approach with the court asking
that the house sale be reversed on the basis of "fraudulent
misrepresentation" giving them back the £32.5m purchase price, plus
compensation for other losses, (including £50,000 for moth-shredded
clothes), and more than £3.7m paid in stamp duty.

They have also presented an alternative case seeking £16m to mark their
losses and the diminished value of the property.

Alternatively, they seek around £13m to cover losses and the cost of
further works.

It will be interesting to see how this one turns out, but it is expected
that Mr Justice Fancourt will reserve his decision until a later date.

So, back to the subject of the post:

Are moths vermin?

How would you have answered the question if you were selling the property?

Regards

S.P.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Simon Parker
An interesting question before the high court as Iya Patarkatsishvili
and Dr Yevhen Hunyak sue William Woodward-Fisher from whom they bought a
seven-bedroom early Victorian mansion in Notting Hill for £32.5m in May
2019.
Their claim is that the mansion is infested with millions of moths,
infesting the wool insulation behind the walls and ceilings, which are
destroying clothing, and ruining their wine with, at one point, moths
landing on the couple and their two children's toothbrushes, cutlery and
food, with glasses of wine having to be tipped away as moths were
floating in them.
John McGhee KC, for the couple, said they were swatting away about 100
moths a day and even after intensive sprays and expert treatment still
kill around 35 moths a day.
Their claim is that Woodward-Fisher is either guilty of fraudulent
misrepresentation or was negligent in failing to disclose previous moth
infestations when answering pre-sale questions about the possibility of
"vermin" in the house.
The couple are seeking more than £36m which includes Woodward-Fisher
buying back the house and compensating them for all expenses and
inconvenience suffered. They further claim it will cost in excess of
£10m to replace all the woollen insulation in the building.
Woodward-Fisher, on the other hand, denies all claims insisting that he
gave honest and full replies on the pre-sale form and that, as far as he
knew, any previous moth problems had been eliminated by the time of the
move. He also disputes the cost of remedial work arguing that the more
accurate repair bill would be £162,652.
Jonathan Seitler KC, for Woodward-Fisher, said he was honest when
answering the question about possible previous "vermin infestations", as
Woodward-Fisher told his solicitor they had experienced problems with
moths only to be assured that moths were not vermin and not relevant to
the question.
Part of the legal debate therefore hinges on whether moths are vermin
and have to be included when answering the question about "vermin
infestations".
McGhee told Mr Justice Fancourt that Woodward-Fisher was well aware of
the presence and cause of the infestation as treatment had necessitated
Woodward-Fisher and his family to check into a hotel and remove their
dog from the property to clear the way for a major spray to treat the
problem.
Seitler said his client had enlisted pest control in 2018 who "appeared
to have succeeded in their task by July 2018", and moths were no longer
a problem when they moved out in 2019.
The couple have taken a multi-pronged approach with the court asking
that the house sale be reversed on the basis of "fraudulent
misrepresentation" giving them back the £32.5m purchase price, plus
compensation for other losses, (including £50,000 for moth-shredded
clothes), and more than £3.7m paid in stamp duty.
They have also presented an alternative case seeking £16m to mark their
losses and the diminished value of the property.
Alternatively, they seek around £13m to cover losses and the cost of
further works.
It will be interesting to see how this one turns out, but it is expected
that Mr Justice Fancourt will reserve his decision until a later date.
Are moths vermin?
How would you have answered the question if you were selling the property?

I would have done as Mr Woodward-Fisher appears to have done, and told
my solicitor about the moths, and left it up to them to decide what to
say about them. And I would then expect my solicitor's insurance to
pick up the tab if the answer resulted in my getting sued.

[Simon Parker]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Simon Parker
An interesting question before the high court as Iya Patarkatsishvili
and Dr Yevhen Hunyak sue William Woodward-Fisher from whom they bought a
seven-bedroom early Victorian mansion in Notting Hill for £32.5m in May
2019.

[...]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Simon Parker
Are moths vermin?
How would you have answered the question if you were selling the property?

I would have done as Mr Woodward-Fisher appears to have done, and told
my solicitor about the moths, and left it up to them to decide what to
say about them. And I would then expect my solicitor's insurance to
pick up the tab if the answer resulted in my getting sued.

The fifth edition (2024) of the TA6 "Property Information" form does not
mention vermin, (or pests - see below) so it is interesting in what
context the question arose, why it was asked and by whom.

Amongst their list of "important and relevant issues which need
disclosing" by the seller the Law Society cite "problems with pests"
(and it is clear, even if moths are not vermin, then in the context of
this case, they are most certainly a pest).

It is arguable therefore that the solicitor had both a legal and
professional duty to disclose the information about the moths rather
than hiding the information because of a strict interpretation of a
particular word.

(If the solicitor had instructed the seller that the information needed
to be disclosed and the seller refused to consent to the information
being released, the guidance from the Law Society is that the solicitor
should cease acting for the client.)

It is to be hoped that Mr Woodward-Fisher's conveyancing was overseen by
someone suitably senior and suitably qualified to answer the question
asked about moths rather than it having been looked after by a junior
member of staff before being waved under the nose of a solicitor.

It is similarly to be hoped that there is a written record of both the
question and the answer.

Regards

S.P.

[GB]

Post by Simon Parker

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Simon Parker
An interesting question before the high court as Iya Patarkatsishvili
and Dr Yevhen Hunyak sue William Woodward-Fisher from whom they bought a
seven-bedroom early Victorian mansion in Notting Hill for £32.5m in May
2019.

[...]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Simon Parker
Are moths vermin?
How would you have answered the question if you were selling the property?

I would have done as Mr Woodward-Fisher appears to have done, and told
my solicitor about the moths, and left it up to them to decide what to
say about them. And I would then expect my solicitor's insurance to
pick up the tab if the answer resulted in my getting sued.

The fifth edition (2024) of the TA6 "Property Information" form does not
mention vermin, (or pests - see below) so it is interesting in what
context the question arose, why it was asked and by whom.
Amongst their list of "important and relevant issues which need
disclosing" by the seller the Law Society cite "problems with
pests" (and it is clear, even if moths are not vermin, then in the
context of this case, they are most certainly a pest).
It is arguable therefore that the solicitor had both a legal and
professional duty to disclose the information about the moths rather
than hiding the information because of a strict interpretation of a
particular word.
(If the solicitor had instructed the seller that the information needed
to be disclosed and the seller refused to consent to the information
being released, the guidance from the Law Society is that the solicitor
should cease acting for the client.)
It is to be hoped that Mr Woodward-Fisher's conveyancing was overseen by
someone suitably senior and suitably qualified to answer the question
asked about moths rather than it having been looked after by a junior
member of staff before being waved under the nose of a solicitor.
It is similarly to be hoped that there is a written record of both the
question and the answer.

The TA6 in force in 2019, when this transaction took place, was the 3rd
edition. This doesn't seem to mention pests or vermin. However, on a
fairly meaty transaction, I'm not surprised that the buyer's solicitors
dreamt up a few questions of their own.

Post by Simon Parker
Regards
S.P.

[Simon Parker]

Post by GB

Post by Simon Parker

Post by Jon Ribbens
I would have done as Mr Woodward-Fisher appears to have done, and told
my solicitor about the moths, and left it up to them to decide what to
say about them. And I would then expect my solicitor's insurance to
pick up the tab if the answer resulted in my getting sued.

The fifth edition (2024) of the TA6 "Property Information" form does
not mention vermin, (or pests - see below) so it is interesting in
what context the question arose, why it was asked and by whom.
Amongst their list of "important and relevant issues which need
disclosing" by the seller the Law Society cite "problems with
pests" (and it is clear, even if moths are not vermin, then in the
context of this case, they are most certainly a pest).
It is arguable therefore that the solicitor had both a legal and
professional duty to disclose the information about the moths rather
than hiding the information because of a strict interpretation of a
particular word.
(If the solicitor had instructed the seller that the information
needed to be disclosed and the seller refused to consent to the
information being released, the guidance from the Law Society is that
the solicitor should cease acting for the client.)
It is to be hoped that Mr Woodward-Fisher's conveyancing was overseen
by someone suitably senior and suitably qualified to answer the
question asked about moths rather than it having been looked after by
a junior member of staff before being waved under the nose of a
solicitor.
It is similarly to be hoped that there is a written record of both the
question and the answer.

The TA6 in force in 2019, when this transaction took place, was the 3rd
edition. This doesn't seem to mention pests or vermin. However, on a
fairly meaty transaction, I'm not surprised that the buyer's solicitors
dreamt up a few questions of their own.

I am not aware of any version of TA6 form, (historic, current or
proposed), that mentions pests or vermin.

However, as I said above, "problems with pests" is considered an
"important and relevant issue which needs disclosing" by the seller.

As for the buyers in this particular transaction, they have been
described in court, (and given the facts, it is a description that seems
fitting), as "fastidious" during the purchase process.

For example, they (or their representatives) visited the property on at
least 11 occasions between April 2018 and May 2019. Similarly, numerous
experts were sent to survey the property, some of whom were there for
several hours on occasion.

For example, in March 2019 staff employed by the purchasers visited the
property for three hours to assess whether noise from the Central Line
was too intrusive.

They returned four days later for several hours, insisting on total
silence, even requiring the dishwasher be turned off, before returning
again on another day with a sound engineer.

In total, they or their representatives spent in excess of 15 hours in
the property, both during the day and at night, although much of their
concern focussed on possible noise disturbance from a nearby pub and a
London Underground line, rather than moths.

Regards

S.P.

[GB]

Post by Simon Parker
However, as I said above, "problems with pests" is considered an
"important and relevant issue which needs disclosing" by the seller.

This is the bit I am confused about.

The vendors were asked a specific question about vermin, and said there
were none, which seems to be the basis for the present case.

So where does "important and relevant issue which needs disclosing" come
from in terms of law? Does caveat emptor not apply any longer?

[Simon Parker]

Post by GB

Post by Simon Parker
However, as I said above, "problems with pests" is considered an
"important and relevant issue which needs disclosing" by the seller.

This is the bit I am confused about.
The vendors were asked a specific question about vermin, and said there
were none, which seems to be the basis for the present case.
So where does "important and relevant issue which needs disclosing" come
from in terms of law?

It is from guidance issued to professionals engaged in the conveyancing
process.

The legal basis for the guidance is The Consumer Protection from Unfair
Trading Regulations 2008. [^1]

In those regulations:

"product" means "(d) immovable property" (which therefore includes house
sales)

and

"'professional diligence' means the standard of special skill and care
which a trader may reasonably be expected to exercise towards consumers
which is commensurate with either—

"(a) honest market practice in the trader's field of activity, or

"(b) the general principle of good faith in the trader's field of
activity;".

This blog post by Chancellors produces the text and list pretty much
verbatim. [^2]

See also this blog post from ORJ Law. [^3]

In short, there is a legal responsibility to disclose anything which may
materially impact the buyer's decision to purchase the property.

Post by GB
Does caveat emptor not apply any longer?

Not for a very long time in transactions involving professionals or in
the course of a business, no.

They days where companies such as "Dodgy Dave's Used Cars" thrived are
over, or at least they should be, if people know the law and are
prepared to use it.

Regards

S.P.

[^1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277

[^2]
https://www.chancellors.co.uk/resource-centre/useful-information-for-sellers/what-do-you-legally-have-to-disclose-selling-a-house-uk

[^3]
https://www.orj.co.uk/consumer-protection-from-unfair-trading-regulations-related-to-property-sales

[GB]

Post by Simon Parker

Post by GB

Post by Simon Parker
However, as I said above, "problems with pests" is considered an
"important and relevant issue which needs disclosing" by the seller.

This is the bit I am confused about.
The vendors were asked a specific question about vermin, and said
there were none, which seems to be the basis for the present case.
So where does "important and relevant issue which needs disclosing"
come from in terms of law?

It is from guidance issued to professionals engaged in the conveyancing
process.
The legal basis for the guidance is The Consumer Protection from Unfair
Trading Regulations 2008. [^1]
"product" means "(d) immovable property" (which therefore includes house
sales)
and
"'professional diligence' means the standard of special skill and care
which a trader may reasonably be expected to exercise towards consumers
which is commensurate with either—
"(a) honest market practice in the trader's field of activity, or
"(b) the general principle of good faith in the trader's field of
activity;".
This blog post by Chancellors produces the text and list pretty much
verbatim. [^2]
See also this blog post from ORJ Law. [^3]
In short, there is a legal responsibility to disclose anything which may
materially impact the buyer's decision to purchase the property.

I can see that that affects the estate agents, but not their customers.
When I put a property up for sale recently, the estate agent asked me to
tell him what was wrong with the place. (And, then didn't mention the
asbestos problems in the sales blurb!)

However, I assumed that the estate agent's responsibility is to ask
sensible questions, and if the seller doesn't mention a previous moth
infestation, I rather assumed the estate agent is not responsible.
There's really no way for the estate agent to find out about that, apart
from asking the customer.

Post by Simon Parker

Post by GB
Does caveat emptor not apply any longer?

Not for a very long time in transactions involving professionals or in
the course of a business, no.

But, the seller is not acting in the course of a business?

Post by Simon Parker
They days where companies such as "Dodgy Dave's Used Cars" thrived are
over, or at least they should be, if people know the law and are
prepared to use it.
Regards
S.P.
[^1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277
[^2] https://www.chancellors.co.uk/resource-centre/useful-information-
for-sellers/what-do-you-legally-have-to-disclose-selling-a-house-uk
[^3] https://www.orj.co.uk/consumer-protection-from-unfair-trading-
regulations-related-to-property-sales

[Simon Parker]

Post by GB

Post by Simon Parker

Post by GB
This is the bit I am confused about.
The vendors were asked a specific question about vermin, and said
there were none, which seems to be the basis for the present case.
So where does "important and relevant issue which needs disclosing"
come from in terms of law?

It is from guidance issued to professionals engaged in the
conveyancing process.
The legal basis for the guidance is The Consumer Protection from
Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. [^1]
"product" means "(d) immovable property" (which therefore includes
house sales)
and
"'professional diligence' means the standard of special skill and care
which a trader may reasonably be expected to exercise towards
consumers which is commensurate with either—
"(a) honest market practice in the trader's field of activity, or
"(b) the general principle of good faith in the trader's field of
activity;".
This blog post by Chancellors produces the text and list pretty much
verbatim. [^2]
See also this blog post from ORJ Law. [^3]
In short, there is a legal responsibility to disclose anything which
may materially impact the buyer's decision to purchase the property.

I can see that that affects the estate agents, but not their customers.
When I put a property up for sale recently, the estate agent asked me to
tell him what was wrong with the place. (And, then didn't mention the
asbestos problems in the sales blurb!)
However, I assumed that the estate agent's responsibility is to ask
sensible questions, and if the seller doesn't mention a previous moth
infestation, I rather assumed the estate agent is not responsible.
There's really no way for the estate agent to find out about that, apart
from asking the customer.

The question about vermin was routed through the vendor's solicitors to
whom the previous moth problem was disclosed.

The solicitor was under a legal, moral and professional obligation to
ensure this was disclosed to the buyers as it could materially impact
their decision to purchase the property.

Post by GB

Post by Simon Parker

Post by GB
Does caveat emptor not apply any longer?

Not for a very long time in transactions involving professionals or in
the course of a business, no.

But, the seller is not acting in the course of a business?

Their solicitor was.

Regards

S.P.

[GB]

Post by Simon Parker

Post by GB

Post by Simon Parker

Post by GB
This is the bit I am confused about.
The vendors were asked a specific question about vermin, and said
there were none, which seems to be the basis for the present case.
So where does "important and relevant issue which needs disclosing"
come from in terms of law?

It is from guidance issued to professionals engaged in the
conveyancing process.
The legal basis for the guidance is The Consumer Protection from
Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. [^1]
"product" means "(d) immovable property" (which therefore includes
house sales)
and
"'professional diligence' means the standard of special skill and
care which a trader may reasonably be expected to exercise towards
consumers which is commensurate with either—
"(a) honest market practice in the trader's field of activity, or
"(b) the general principle of good faith in the trader's field of
activity;".
This blog post by Chancellors produces the text and list pretty much
verbatim. [^2]
See also this blog post from ORJ Law. [^3]
In short, there is a legal responsibility to disclose anything which
may materially impact the buyer's decision to purchase the property.

I can see that that affects the estate agents, but not their
customers. When I put a property up for sale recently, the estate
agent asked me to tell him what was wrong with the place. (And, then
didn't mention the asbestos problems in the sales blurb!)
However, I assumed that the estate agent's responsibility is to ask
sensible questions, and if the seller doesn't mention a previous moth
infestation, I rather assumed the estate agent is not responsible.
There's really no way for the estate agent to find out about that,
apart from asking the customer.

The question about vermin was routed through the vendor's solicitors to
whom the previous moth problem was disclosed.
The solicitor was under a legal, moral and professional obligation to
ensure this was disclosed to the buyers as it could materially impact
their decision to purchase the property.

I wasn't querying the solicitor's obligation, nor the vendor's in
response to a specific question.

I just wanted to clarify whether there's a more general obligation on
the part of the vendor, personally. In particular, does he need to
proffer adverse information, even if not asked about it?

[GB]

Post by Simon Parker
It will be interesting to see how this one turns out, but it is expected
that Mr Justice Fancourt will reserve his decision until a later date.
Are moths vermin?

I'm surprised that they didn't have a preliminary hearing to determine
this.

Post by Simon Parker
How would you have answered the question if you were selling the property?

"The buyer must make his own investigations."

Post by Simon Parker
Regards
S.P.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by GB

Post by Simon Parker
It will be interesting to see how this one turns out, but it is expected
that Mr Justice Fancourt will reserve his decision until a later date.
Are moths vermin?

I'm surprised that they didn't have a preliminary hearing to determine
this.

Post by Simon Parker
How would you have answered the question if you were selling the property?

"The buyer must make his own investigations."

Post by Simon Parker
Regards
S.P.

I'm not sure that would cover you if you knew the answer.

[Simon Parker]

Post by GB

Post by Simon Parker
It will be interesting to see how this one turns out, but it is
expected that Mr Justice Fancourt will reserve his decision until a
later date.
Are moths vermin?

I'm surprised that they didn't have a preliminary hearing to determine
this.

It is a complex case with multiple heads of claim. Costs are unlikely
to be reduced by much by having a preliminary hearing to decide a part
of only one of the strands of the case nor is it likely to reduce
significantly the complexity of the case.

They could similarly have had a preliminary hearing to determine the
reasonable cost of remedial work to remove the woollen insulation given
that estimates for completing the work ranged from £162,652 to £10m.

Sometimes, it is better just to get the parties in court and let them
present their respective arguments in totality and make a determination
thereafter. (Or as is more likely to be the case here, to reserve the
decision to a later date.)

Post by GB

Post by Simon Parker
How would you have answered the question if you were selling the property?

"The buyer must make his own investigations."

Thankfully, the days of answering any and all questions "Not known" (or
with the variation thereof you've used above) are long gone.

The instructions to the seller should be that they should answer all
questions as accurately as they can from their own knowledge.

They are not expected to have expert knowledge of legal or technical
matters or matters that occurred prior to their ownership of the
property or information that can only be obtained by carrying out
surveys, local authority searches or other enquiries.

It should be stressed that all answers must be truthful.

Answering "Not known" or "The buyer must make his own investigations" is
not truthful nor is it considered accurate if the seller knows the
answer or can ascertain it with reasonable care and skill.

However, being asked "Are you aware of any problems with vermin or pests
in the property?" cannot be answered either "Not known" or with your
version if the entire family have had to decamp to a hotel and the dog
put in kennels whilst the place was fumigated for moths.

The only accurate and truthful answer that can be given is: "In 2018 we
had a problem with a moth infestation. In July of that year, we
temporarily moved into a hotel whilst a deep fumigation of the property
was performed. Following this treatment, we have had no further
problems with moths."

Regards

S.P.

[GB]

Post by Simon Parker

Post by GB

Post by Simon Parker
How would you have answered the question if you were selling the property?

"The buyer must make his own investigations."

Thankfully, the days of answering any and all questions "Not known" (or
with the variation thereof you've used above) are long gone.
The instructions to the seller should be that they should answer all
questions as accurately as they can from their own knowledge.

I haven't had to fill in one of these forms for over 25 years, so I'm
well behind the times. Relying on a rather fine distinction between
pests and vermin seems a great deal more risky than effectively refusing
to answer the question.

It's obviously daft to refuse to answer just one question on the form,
so a more interesting strategy would just be to refuse to fill in any of
the forms. That might put the kibosh on any mortgage, but it doesn't
seem likely that the couple in this case were relying on a mortgage.

Post by Simon Parker
They are not expected to have expert knowledge of legal or technical
matters or matters that occurred prior to their ownership of the
property or information that can only be obtained by carrying out
surveys, local authority searches or other enquiries.
It should be stressed that all answers must be truthful.
Answering "Not known" or "The buyer must make his own investigations" is
not truthful nor is it considered accurate if the seller knows the
answer or can ascertain it with reasonable care and skill.
However, being asked "Are you aware of any problems with vermin or pests
in the property?" cannot be answered either "Not known" or with your
version if the entire family have had to decamp to a hotel and the dog
put in kennels whilst the place was fumigated for moths.
The only accurate and truthful answer that can be given is: "In 2018 we
had a problem with a moth infestation.  In July of that year, we
temporarily moved into a hotel whilst a deep fumigation of the property
was performed.  Following this treatment, we have had no further
problems with moths."

Indeed, and the purchase would probably have proceeded smoothly, without
any possibility for a court case.

Incidentally, I've made a note never to use wool insulation.

Post by Simon Parker
Regards
S.P.

[Spike]

GB <***@microsoft.invalid> wrote:

[…]

Post by GB
Incidentally, I've made a note never to use wool insulation.

Potential problems of insect infestation were advanced some decades ago,
when people were clamouring for ‘sustainability’ and ‘the environment’ to
be considered when insulation materials were being discussed, and it’s
interesting to see the forecast issues reaching such a state.

[Theo]

Post by Spike
[…]

Post by GB
Incidentally, I've made a note never to use wool insulation.

Potential problems of insect infestation were advanced some decades ago,
when people were clamouring for ‘sustainability’ and ‘the environment’ to
be considered when insulation materials were being discussed, and it’s
interesting to see the forecast issues reaching such a state.

Sheepswool insulation is supposed to be vermin and fireproof if treated with
borax. I wonder whether it was treated in this case?

Theo

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Theo

Post by Spike
[…]

Post by GB
Incidentally, I've made a note never to use wool insulation.

Potential problems of insect infestation were advanced some decades ago,
when people were clamouring for ‘sustainability’ and ‘the environment’ to
be considered when insulation materials were being discussed, and it’s
interesting to see the forecast issues reaching such a state.

Sheepswool insulation is supposed to be vermin and fireproof if treated with
borax. I wonder whether it was treated in this case?
Theo

The important word there being "supposed". As Spike observed, some of us were
less than convinced. Note that preservative treated timber isn't 'supposed' to
rot, but manages it in the end. Life (sensu lato) is impressive. Bacteria were
not supposed to live in hot springs or rock metres underground, but they do.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Simon Parker
The only accurate and truthful answer that can be given is: "In
2018 we had a problem with a moth infestation. In July of that
year, we temporarily moved into a hotel whilst a deep fumigation
of the property was performed. Following this treatment, we
have had no further problems with moths."

In which circumstances won't those contracted to remove the moths
be liable ?

Assuming its a large company which will have been properly insured
and they give some sort of guarantee ?

The problem being that all least once source claims that the only "real"
solution to this problem is the removal of all the wool insulation,

quote:

In cases where there is a severe infestation it seems, based on the experience
of others who have had to deal with it, that the only option is to remove the
affected material and thoroughly vacuum the area. The costs can be very
high and the disruption to family life can be intrusive.

:unquote

https://listedbuildingsurveys.co.uk/moths-related-to-the-use-of-wool-insulation/

As on the basis of no technical knowledge whatsoever it nevertheless seems
reasonable to assume that fumigation will only be a temporary solution unless
it "permeates all of the wool insulation and any moth eggs or larvae it may
contain." As otherwise once the house is again safe for humans it will presumably
also be safe for any emerging moths as well. Who can then start breeding again.


bb

[GB]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Simon Parker
The only accurate and truthful answer that can be given is: "In
2018 we had a problem with a moth infestation. In July of that
year, we temporarily moved into a hotel whilst a deep fumigation
of the property was performed. Following this treatment, we
have had no further problems with moths."

In which circumstances won't those contracted to remove the moths
be liable ?

I suspect that pest controllers contract to carry out a specified
treatment, but they don't guarantee the results of that treatment.

[Simon Parker]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Simon Parker
The only accurate and truthful answer that can be given is: "In
2018 we had a problem with a moth infestation. In July of that
year, we temporarily moved into a hotel whilst a deep fumigation
of the property was performed. Following this treatment, we
have had no further problems with moths."

In which circumstances won't those contracted to remove the moths
be liable ?

What does the contract say?

Post by billy bookcase
Assuming its a large company which will have been properly insured
and they give some sort of guarantee ?

What are the terms and conditions of the guarantee that was proffered?

Post by billy bookcase
The problem being that all least once source claims that the only "real"
solution to this problem is the removal of all the wool insulation,
In cases where there is a severe infestation it seems, based on the experience
of others who have had to deal with it, that the only option is to remove the
affected material and thoroughly vacuum the area. The costs can be very
high and the disruption to family life can be intrusive.
:unquote
https://listedbuildingsurveys.co.uk/moths-related-to-the-use-of-wool-insulation/

A key issue in this case is the cost of removing and replacing the wool
insulation. One party alleges it will cost around £150K whilst the
other alleges it will cost £10m.

Given that the latter figure is greater than the build cost for the
entire property, (including extensive recent remodelling), the true cost
is likely to be somewhere between the two, (but closer to the first, I
would suggest).

Post by billy bookcase
As on the basis of no technical knowledge whatsoever it nevertheless seems
reasonable to assume that fumigation will only be a temporary solution unless
it "permeates all of the wool insulation and any moth eggs or larvae it may
contain." As otherwise once the house is again safe for humans it will presumably
also be safe for any emerging moths as well. Who can then start breeding again.

I do not know about moths in woollen insulation but have experience of
dealing with box moth infestation. They key is to break the cycle of
reproduction (and in the case of box moths, ensuring one's neighbours do
the same). The product I used for box moths contains a bacteria which
soaked into the leaves and continued living there. Larvae that aren't
directly killed by the product when applied to the buxus, and eggs which
subsequently hatch, die shortly after eating the leaves and before they
mature and reproduce thus breaking the cycle. Depending upon the
weather, a box moth has four or five reproductive cycles per year. One
treatment per cycle last year ensured that my buxus were left well alone
this year (and are recovering nicely).

Regards

S.P.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Simon Parker

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Simon Parker
The only accurate and truthful answer that can be given is: "In
2018 we had a problem with a moth infestation. In July of that
year, we temporarily moved into a hotel whilst a deep fumigation
of the property was performed. Following this treatment, we
have had no further problems with moths."

In which circumstances won't those contracted to remove the moths
be liable ?

What does the contract say?

Post by billy bookcase
Assuming its a large company which will have been properly insured
and they give some sort of guarantee ?

What are the terms and conditions of the guarantee that was proffered?

That's precisely the point. The vendors admit they had the property treated in 2018.

Now if the company involved refused to give any sort of guarantee as to the effectiveness
of that treatment or how long it would last, then the vendors can't claim they didn't
realise the problem might well re-occur in the future.

Whereas if the contractors did give any such guarantee, thus allowing the vendors
to sell with confidence, then in the event of any failure it's open to the vendors to
take action against the contractors

Post by Simon Parker

Post by billy bookcase
The problem being that all least once source claims that the only "real"
solution to this problem is the removal of all the wool insulation,
In cases where there is a severe infestation it seems, based on the experience
of others who have had to deal with it, that the only option is to remove the
affected material and thoroughly vacuum the area. The costs can be very
high and the disruption to family life can be intrusive.
:unquote
https://listedbuildingsurveys.co.uk/moths-related-to-the-use-of-wool-insulation/

A key issue in this case is the cost of removing and replacing the wool insulation.
One party alleges it will cost around £150K whilst the other alleges it will cost £10m.

Is the lower figure for actual removal, rather than maybe drilling yet more holes
and pumping in, even greater amounts of pesticide ?

Post by Simon Parker
Given that the latter figure is greater than the build cost for the entire property,
(including extensive recent remodelling), the true cost is likely to be somewhere
between the two, (but closer to the first, I would suggest).

Its a very big house with a large number of rooms as pictured in the Guardian

And while the £10 million quote for replacement sounds a bit on the "optimistic"
side, to say the very least, the very specific figure quoted by the vendor

quote:

He also says the couple's valuation of how much it would cost to remedy the problem is
massively overblown, arguing that the true repair bill would be £162,652.

:unquote


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/12/couple-sues-house-seller-for-36m-over-moth-infested-london-mansion#img-1

seems to be rather misplaced under the circumstances, As presumably that was the
cost of the previous "treatment"

Post by Simon Parker

Post by billy bookcase
As on the basis of no technical knowledge whatsoever it nevertheless seems
reasonable to assume that fumigation will only be a temporary solution unless
it "permeates all of the wool insulation and any moth eggs or larvae it may
contain." As otherwise once the house is again safe for humans it will presumably
also be safe for any emerging moths as well. Who can then start breeding again.

I do not know about moths in woollen insulation but have experience of dealing with box
moth infestation.

The larvae actually eat wool*. In carpets, in clothes, and then someone has the bright
idea of using it for insulation; out of sight, in the dark, and nice and warm and dry but
without first pre-treating it with borax or similar.

Post by Simon Parker
They key is to break the cycle of reproduction (and in the case of box moths, ensuring
one's neighbours do the same). The product I used for box moths contains a bacteria
which soaked into the leaves and continued living there. Larvae that aren't directly
killed by the product when applied to the buxus, and eggs which subsequently hatch, die
shortly after eating the leaves and before they mature and reproduce thus breaking the
cycle. Depending upon the weather, a box moth has four or five reproductive cycles per
year. One treatment per cycle last year ensured that my buxus were left well alone
this year (and are recovering nicely).

bb

* They also eat acrylic (mix). Old style acrylic jumpers* were fine and totally
mothproof. Modern acrylic jumpers often incorporate 5% or 10% wool - presumably
there's a worldwide glut of the stuff, Which can come as a shock to people who
don't read labels too closely.

* Chosen specifically because they *were* moth proof
and generally indestructible.

[GB]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Simon Parker

Post by billy bookcase
In which circumstances won't those contracted to remove the moths
be liable ?

What does the contract say?

Post by billy bookcase
Assuming its a large company which will have been properly insured
and they give some sort of guarantee ?

What are the terms and conditions of the guarantee that was proffered?

That's precisely the point. The vendors admit they had the property treated in 2018.
Now if the company involved refused to give any sort of guarantee as to the effectiveness
of that treatment or how long it would last, then the vendors can't claim they didn't
realise the problem might well re-occur in the future.
Whereas if the contractors did give any such guarantee, thus allowing the vendors
to sell with confidence, then in the event of any failure it's open to the vendors to
take action against the contractors

You're excluding a middle ground there, where the contractor is
generally positive about the treatment, but doesn't guarantee the
effectiveness.

AFAICS, the treatment was effective for at least a year. I suspect that
the buyers then let the moths get completely out of control, rather than
having them treated. Whilst I sympathise with some of the horror stories
about the house in today's news, it seems silly of the buyers to have
let it get that bad.

[billy bookcase]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Simon Parker

Post by billy bookcase
In which circumstances won't those contracted to remove the moths
be liable ?

What does the contract say?

Post by billy bookcase
Assuming its a large company which will have been properly insured
and they give some sort of guarantee ?

What are the terms and conditions of the guarantee that was proffered?

That's precisely the point. The vendors admit they had the property treated in 2018.
Now if the company involved refused to give any sort of guarantee as to the effectiveness
of that treatment or how long it would last, then the vendors can't claim they didn't
realise the problem might well re-occur in the future.
Whereas if the contractors did give any such guarantee, thus allowing the vendors
to sell with confidence, then in the event of any failure it's open to the vendors to
take action against the contractors

You're excluding a middle ground there, where the contractor is generally positive
about the treatment, but doesn't guarantee the effectiveness.

The vendor quoted a precise figure

quote:

He also says the couple's valuation of how much it would cost to remedy the problem is
massively overblown, arguing that the true repair bill would be £162,652.

:unquote

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/12/couple-sues-house-seller-for-36m-over-moth-infested-london-mansion#img-1

Which is presumably what he'd paid,

If I were being asked to pay £162,652 for something I'd expect a bit more than
"generally positive" but no guarantees up front". Wouldn't you ?

Or at least not try and subsequently evade responsibility when the gamble failed
to pay off.

AFAICS, the treatment was effective for at least a year.

Er no. What most likely happened is that the larvae hatched and at first
the moths were quite happy moving round in any voids they could find in
the insulation. While laying more eggs. Only when their numbers increased
exponentially after a few generations, did they then venture out.

I suspect that the buyers then let the moths get completely out of control, rather than
having them treated.

The point is, it clearly can't be treated. Except by total removal and replacement
with pre-treated wool insulation or an equivalent

As the £162,652 solution attempted by the vendors, presumably involving pesticides,
was clearly ineffective.

Whilst I sympathise with some of the horror stories about the house in today's news, it
seems silly of the buyers to have let it get that bad.

So they should taken up the floorboards and made holes in the walls to check for
themselves ?

In fact thinking about this, it isn't just "a problem with moths".

The actual problem has always been the initial installation of the untreated
wool insulation, which then potentially could and did lead on to the
insuperable problem with the moths. Although whether the vendor mentioned
this aspect to his solicitor when seeking their advice, isn't at all clear.


bb

[Simon Parker]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase
That's precisely the point. The vendors admit they had the property treated in 2018.
Now if the company involved refused to give any sort of guarantee as to the
effectiveness
of that treatment or how long it would last, then the vendors can't claim they didn't
realise the problem might well re-occur in the future.
Whereas if the contractors did give any such guarantee, thus allowing the vendors
to sell with confidence, then in the event of any failure it's open to the vendors to
take action against the contractors

You're excluding a middle ground there, where the contractor is generally positive
about the treatment, but doesn't guarantee the effectiveness.

The vendor quoted a precise figure
He also says the couple's valuation of how much it would cost to remedy the problem is
massively overblown, arguing that the true repair bill would be Ł162,652.
:unquote
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/12/couple-sues-house-seller-for-36m-over-moth-infested-london-mansion#img-1
Which is presumably what he'd paid,

I find no reasonable basis for making this presumption, other than that
it advances your argument.

If the cost of fumigating the property was £162,652 as you allege, and
let's round it down to £150K to keep it simple, assuming costs of £50K
per job, (which is fanciful in the extreme), that means the fumigators
are making a profit of £100K *per week*. (Assuming a visit to quote the
job, performing the work and then removing everything afterwards takes a
whole week, which is also very generous to the fumigators.)

Assuming a team of two, that's £50K each per week, giving a gross profit
of £2.4m each assuming they work for 48 weeks per annum.

If that is the sort of money a fumigator earns, I fear I am in the wrong
business.

And for the avoidance of doubt, that area of London has a known issue
with moths so said fumigators ought to have no shortage of work and
should reach their £2m+ earnings with ease.

Furthermore, as previously stated, the cost of fumigating an average
house is £300 plus £50 per additional room.

Prior to the extension being added, the property was 2,800sq ft
increasing to 11,000sq ft post refurbishment.

£162,652 divided by 11,000sq ft gives a fumigation cost of £14.78 per sq
ft meaning for these figures to work, the "average" house must be a
little over 20sq ft (for a cost of £300) and each additional room around
3.4sq ft (for a cost of £50).

Do you know any fumigators earning £2m+ per annum? If so, do they have
any openings available?

Post by billy bookcase
If I were being asked to pay Ł162,652 for something I'd expect a bit more than
"generally positive" but no guarantees up front". Wouldn't you ?

Nobody, but you, is suggesting that fumigation is going to cost anything
like that. The quoted figure of £162,652 was because the moths have
nested in the woollen insulation embedded in the walls and ceilings and
this would need to be taken out and replaced to remedy the problem.

The new owners allege the work of removing and replacing the woollen
insulation will cost £9.6m (which is more than the rebuild cost for the
entire property) whereas Mr Woodward-Fisher rejects this and says the
*repair bill* (not "fumigation costs") would be £162,652.


[snip more unsubstantiated rampant speculation of the same nature]

Post by billy bookcase

Whilst I sympathise with some of the horror stories about the house in today's news, it
seems silly of the buyers to have let it get that bad.

So they should taken up the floorboards and made holes in the walls to check for
themselves ?

Larval casings and dead moths would have been visible for some
considerable time prior to the situation reaching the point where 100
moths per day were being killed.

Post by billy bookcase
In fact thinking about this, it isn't just "a problem with moths".
The actual problem has always been the initial installation of the untreated
wool insulation, which then potentially could and did lead on to the
insuperable problem with the moths. Although whether the vendor mentioned
this aspect to his solicitor when seeking their advice, isn't at all clear.

The vendor undertook the extension and radical remodelling work during
which the woollen insulation was installed.

Personally, I would not want to be relying in court on the distinction
that the problem was with the installation of the woollen insulation and
that the vendor was too remote from this to be liable. YMMV.

Regards

S.P.

[billy bookcase]

"Simon Parker" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...


< snippage throughout >

The quoted figure of £162,652 was because the moths have nested in the woollen
insulation embedded in the walls and ceilings and this would need to be taken out and
replaced to remedy the problem.

The house is a

quote:

seven-bedroom Notting Hill home in west London - with pool, spa, gym, wine
room, library, cinema, and a "snoring room"

unquote


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/12/couple-sues-house-seller-for-36m-over-moth-infested-london-mansion#img-1



and that's not including "ordinary rooms" such as living rooms dining rooms,
kitchens toilets and bathrooms. All of which are presumably insulated as well..

Are you *seriously suggesting* that it would be possible to take up
the floors and open up the walls in all those rooms and then restore
them all - the walls in particular to their previous immaculate condition
- matching paintwork wallpaper etc as befitting a £35 million house -
all for £162,652 ?

Larval casings and dead moths would have been visible for some considerable time prior
to the situation reaching the point where 100 moths per day were being killed.

Not necessarily. That would depend one whether there were any voids
in the insulation which suddenly became overcrowded,

Post by billy bookcase
In fact thinking about this, it isn't just "a problem with moths".
The actual problem has always been the initial installation of the untreated
wool insulation, which then potentially could and did lead on to the
insuperable problem with the moths. Although whether the vendor mentioned
this aspect to his solicitor when seeking their advice, isn't at all clear.

The vendor undertook the extension and radical remodelling work during which the
woollen insulation was installed.
Personally, I would not want to be relying in court on the distinction that the problem
was with the installation of the woollen insulation and that the vendor was too remote
from this to be liable.

Too remote ?

But then surely if the vendor didn't obtain any sort of guarantee from the installer
then he must bear the risk in the event of anything subsequently going wrong.


bb

[Simon Parker]

Post by GB

Post by billy bookcase
That's precisely the point. The vendors admit they had the property treated in 2018.
Now if the company involved refused to give any sort of guarantee as to the effectiveness
of that treatment or how long it would last, then the vendors can't claim they didn't
realise the problem might well re-occur in the future.
Whereas if the contractors did give any such guarantee, thus allowing the vendors
to sell with confidence, then in the event of any failure it's open to the vendors to
take action against the contractors

You're excluding a middle ground there, where the contractor is
generally positive about the treatment, but doesn't guarantee the
effectiveness.
AFAICS, the treatment was effective for at least a year. I suspect that
the buyers then let the moths get completely out of control, rather than
having them treated. Whilst I sympathise with some of the horror stories
about the house in today's news, it seems silly of the buyers to have
let it get that bad.

It has been alleged in court that the new owners, aka the applicant,
have been less than "fastidious" in their care and upkeep of the
property since purchasing it.

Regards

S.P.

[billy bookcase]

Post by billy bookcase
That's precisely the point. The vendors admit they had the property treated in 2018.
Now if the company involved refused to give any sort of guarantee as to the
effectiveness
of that treatment or how long it would last, then the vendors can't claim they didn't
realise the problem might well re-occur in the future.
Whereas if the contractors did give any such guarantee, thus allowing the vendors
to sell with confidence, then in the event of any failure it's open to the vendors to
take action against the contractors

You're excluding a middle ground there, where the contractor is generally positive
about the treatment, but doesn't guarantee the effectiveness.
AFAICS, the treatment was effective for at least a year. I suspect that the buyers
then let the moths get completely out of control, rather than having them treated.
Whilst I sympathise with some of the horror stories about the house in today's news,
it seems silly of the buyers to have let it get that bad.

It has been alleged in court that the new owners, aka the applicant, have been less
than "fastidious" in their care and upkeep of the property since purchasing it.

IOW they failed to keep up with the regular £162,652.treatments along
with the fortnights spent in a hotel,

For anyone representing the defendant in a simiular case, before winding up
the plaintiff to that extent, I think it might be advisable to secure their fees up
front,


bb

[Simon Parker]

You're excluding a middle ground there, where the contractor is generally positive
about the treatment, but doesn't guarantee the effectiveness.
AFAICS, the treatment was effective for at least a year. I suspect that the buyers
then let the moths get completely out of control, rather than having them treated.
Whilst I sympathise with some of the horror stories about the house in today's news,
it seems silly of the buyers to have let it get that bad.

It has been alleged in court that the new owners, aka the applicant, have been less
than "fastidious" in their care and upkeep of the property since purchasing it.

IOW they failed to keep up with the regular Ł162,652.treatments along
with the fortnights spent in a hotel,

You are putting words into my mouth as that is neither what I said nor
does it bear any relation to what I said.

Particularly as I have gone to great pains on numerous occasions to
explain why I do not think it credible to suggest that the cost of
fumigation was £162,652.

For anyone representing the defendant in a simiular case, before winding up
the plaintiff to that extent, I think it might be advisable to secure their fees up
front,

ITYM "claimant" rather than "plaintiff". :-)

Furthermore, Jonathan Seitler KC is the Deputy Head of Chambers for
Wilberforce Chambers and has been awarded Chambers & Partners' Real
Estate Silk of the Year for a record four times. In 2023 he was also
awarded their Professional Negligence Silk of the Year award.

I would respectfully suggest that as one of if not the pre-eminent
expert on property litigation and property-related professional
negligence claims, his client is being well-advised without any input
from you.

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Simon Parker

Post by billy bookcase
In which circumstances won't those contracted to remove the moths
be liable ?

What does the contract say?

Post by billy bookcase
Assuming its a large company which will have been properly insured
and they give some sort of guarantee ?

What are the terms and conditions of the guarantee that was proffered?

That's precisely the point. The vendors admit they had the property treated in 2018.
Now if the company involved refused to give any sort of guarantee as to the effectiveness
of that treatment or how long it would last, then the vendors can't claim they didn't
realise the problem might well re-occur in the future.
Whereas if the contractors did give any such guarantee, thus allowing the vendors
to sell with confidence, then in the event of any failure it's open to the vendors to
take action against the contractors

You've clearly had sight of the contract and the terms and conditions of
the guarantee as you seem to know so much about them. Are you able to
provide a link to them or even better post a copy of them here?

If you have not seen the actual contract for this transaction, or one of
a similar nature, and are unsighted as to whether or not it contained
any guarantees as to future effectiveness of the treatment, I can assure
you that not all treatments of this nature from reputable companies are
backed with some form of guarantee. In fact, I would go so far as to
say the majority proffer no guarantee whatsoever.

For example, a well known lawn treatment company do not guarantee to
kill all of the weeds they spray and will only perform a re-treatment
without charge if fewer than 80% of the weeds were killed by the treatment.

Ditto for the company that treated mice in a friend's loft. And rats in
another friend's garden. And the company that treated a neighbour's
buxus for box moth larvae. Etc.

Would now be a good time to review the differences between specific
performance, reasonable endeavours (P&O Property v Norwich Union
[1994]), all reasonable endeavours (Rhodia International Holdings Ltd v
Huntsman International LLC [2007] and CPC Group Ltd v Qatari Diar Real
Estate Investment Company [2010]), all reasonable but commercially
prudent endeavours (CPC Group Ltd v Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment
Company [2010]) and best endeavours (Jet2.com v Blackpool Airports
[2012]) or can we leave that for another time as I need to head into a
meeting?

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Simon Parker

Post by billy bookcase
The problem being that all least once source claims that the only "real"
solution to this problem is the removal of all the wool insulation,
In cases where there is a severe infestation it seems, based on the experience
of others who have had to deal with it, that the only option is to remove the
affected material and thoroughly vacuum the area. The costs can be very
high and the disruption to family life can be intrusive.
:unquote
https://listedbuildingsurveys.co.uk/moths-related-to-the-use-of-wool-insulation/

A key issue in this case is the cost of removing and replacing the wool insulation.
One party alleges it will cost around Ł150K whilst the other alleges it will cost Ł10m.

Is the lower figure for actual removal, rather than maybe drilling yet more holes
and pumping in, even greater amounts of pesticide ?

I was not in court and can only repeat what has been reported by those
that were in court.

However, the property vendor and respondent in the case is a high-end
property developer and is a director both of a real estate letting
company and a real estate management company therefore I believe it is
reasonable to assume both that he has access to contacts that may be
able to complete the necessary work and that he may be able to get the
work completed for a price below the typical market rate.

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Simon Parker
Given that the latter figure is greater than the build cost for the entire property,
(including extensive recent remodelling), the true cost is likely to be somewhere
between the two, (but closer to the first, I would suggest).

Its a very big house with a large number of rooms as pictured in the Guardian
And while the Ł10 million quote for replacement sounds a bit on the "optimistic"
side, to say the very least, the very specific figure quoted by the vendor
He also says the couple's valuation of how much it would cost to remedy the problem is
massively overblown, arguing that the true repair bill would be Ł162,652.
:unquote
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/12/couple-sues-house-seller-for-36m-over-moth-infested-london-mansion#img-1
seems to be rather misplaced under the circumstances, As presumably that was the
cost of the previous "treatment"

Why do you presume that?

If I were a gambling man, (I'm not, but if I were...), I'd wager that
the property was fumigated with sulfuryl fluoride, methyl bromide, or
similar which is why the occupants (and their dog) needed to decamp to a
hotel for several days whilst the treatment was carried out. Treatment
starts at around £300 for an "average" house adding around £50 per
additional room.

Even assuming a price of £1,000 for setting up and quadrupling the cost
per room to account for larger than average rooms would allow for
treating over 800 rooms at the price quoted in court. I accept that the
property is large, but surely not *that* large?

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Simon Parker

Post by billy bookcase
As on the basis of no technical knowledge whatsoever it nevertheless seems
reasonable to assume that fumigation will only be a temporary solution unless
it "permeates all of the wool insulation and any moth eggs or larvae it may
contain." As otherwise once the house is again safe for humans it will presumably
also be safe for any emerging moths as well. Who can then start breeding again.

I fear that your acknowledged lack of technical knowledge has likely led
you astray.

Preferred fumigants for such treatments are gas and do indeed "permeates
all of the wool insulation and any moth eggs or larvae it may contain".

If treated with sufficiently concentrated fumigant for sufficiently long
enough all eggs, larvae and pupae are killed.

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Simon Parker
I do not know about moths in woollen insulation but have experience of dealing with box
moth infestation.

The larvae actually eat wool*. In carpets, in clothes, and then someone has the bright
idea of using it for insulation; out of sight, in the dark, and nice and warm and dry but
without first pre-treating it with borax or similar.

The case does not allege that is was negligent to use woollen insulation.

Regards

S.P.

[billy bookcase]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Simon Parker

Post by billy bookcase
In which circumstances won't those contracted to remove the moths
be liable ?

What does the contract say?

Post by billy bookcase
Assuming its a large company which will have been properly insured
and they give some sort of guarantee ?

What are the terms and conditions of the guarantee that was proffered?

That's precisely the point. The vendors admit they had the property treated in 2018.
Now if the company involved refused to give any sort of guarantee as to the effectiveness
of that treatment or how long it would last, then the vendors can't claim they didn't
realise the problem might well re-occur in the future.
Whereas if the contractors did give any such guarantee, thus allowing the vendors
to sell with confidence, then in the event of any failure it's open to the vendors to
take action against the contractors

You've clearly had sight of the contract and the terms and conditions of the guarantee
as you seem to know so much about them. Are you able to provide a link to them or even
better post a copy of them here?
If you have not seen the actual contract for this transaction, or one of a similar
nature, and are unsighted as to whether or not it contained any guarantees as to future
effectiveness of the treatment, I can assure you that not all treatments of this nature
from reputable companies are backed with some form of guarantee. In fact, I would go
so far as to say the majority proffer no guarantee whatsoever.
For example, a well known lawn treatment company do not guarantee to kill all of the
weeds they spray and will only perform a re-treatment without charge if fewer than 80%
of the weeds were killed by the treatment.
Ditto for the company that treated mice in a friend's loft. And rats in another
friend's garden. And the company that treated a neighbour's buxus for box moth larvae.
Etc.
Would now be a good time to review the differences between specific performance,
reasonable endeavours (P&O Property v Norwich Union [1994]), all reasonable endeavours
(Rhodia International Holdings Ltd v Huntsman International LLC [2007] and CPC Group
Ltd v Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Company [2010]), all reasonable but
commercially prudent endeavours (CPC Group Ltd v Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment
Company [2010]) and best endeavours (Jet2.com v Blackpool Airports [2012]) or can we
leave that for another time as I need to head into a meeting?

You appear to be again totally missing the point, and in the process putting
yourself to a lot of unnecessary trouble.

The only point at issue is this.

If there is no such guarantee possible in respect of a very serious ongoing
problem, then it becomes even more incumbent on the vendor to apprise
potential purchasers of that problem

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Simon Parker

Post by billy bookcase
The problem being that all least once source claims that the only "real"
solution to this problem is the removal of all the wool insulation,
In cases where there is a severe infestation it seems, based on the experience
of others who have had to deal with it, that the only option is to remove the
affected material and thoroughly vacuum the area. The costs can be very
high and the disruption to family life can be intrusive.
:unquote
https://listedbuildingsurveys.co.uk/moths-related-to-the-use-of-wool-insulation/

A key issue in this case is the cost of removing and replacing the wool insulation.
One party alleges it will cost around L150K whilst the other alleges it will cost
L10m.

Is the lower figure for actual removal, rather than maybe drilling yet more holes
and pumping in, even greater amounts of pesticide ?

I was not in court and can only repeat what has been reported by those that were in
court.
However, the property vendor and respondent in the case is a high-end property
developer and is a director both of a real estate letting company and a real estate
management company therefore I believe it is reasonable to assume both that he has
access to contacts that may be able to complete the necessary work and that he may be
able to get the work completed for a price below the typical market rate.

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Simon Parker
Given that the latter figure is greater than the build cost for the entire property,
(including extensive recent remodelling), the true cost is likely to be somewhere
between the two, (but closer to the first, I would suggest).

Its a very big house with a large number of rooms as pictured in the Guardian
And while the L10 million quote for replacement sounds a bit on the "optimistic"
side, to say the very least, the very specific figure quoted by the vendor
He also says the couple's valuation of how much it would cost to remedy the problem is
massively overblown, arguing that the true repair bill would be L162,652.
:unquote
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/12/couple-sues-house-seller-for-36m-over-moth-infested-london-mansion#img-1
seems to be rather misplaced under the circumstances, As presumably that was the
cost of the previous "treatment"

Why do you presume that?

Where else do you suppose he got the figure from ?

Or are you suggestingh he paid a) less, or b) more ?

And why ?

If I were a gambling man, (I'm not, but if I were...), I'd wager that the property was
fumigated with sulfuryl fluoride, methyl bromide, or similar which is why the occupants
(and their dog) needed to decamp to a hotel for several days whilst the treatment was
carried out. Treatment starts at around £300 for an "average" house adding around £50
per additional room.
Even assuming a price of £1,000 for setting up and quadrupling the cost per room to
account for larger than average rooms would allow for treating over 800 rooms at the
price quoted in court. I accept that the property is large, but surely not *that*
large?

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Simon Parker

Post by billy bookcase
As on the basis of no technical knowledge whatsoever it nevertheless seems
reasonable to assume that fumigation will only be a temporary solution unless
it "permeates all of the wool insulation and any moth eggs or larvae it may
contain." As otherwise once the house is again safe for humans it will presumably
also be safe for any emerging moths as well. Who can then start breeding again.

I fear that your acknowledged lack of technical knowledge has likely led you astray.
Preferred fumigants for such treatments are gas and do indeed "permeates all of the
wool insulation and any moth eggs or larvae it may contain".
If treated with sufficiently concentrated fumigant for sufficiently long enough all
eggs, larvae and pupae are killed.

Except it wasn't and so they weren't.

Your point being ?

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Simon Parker
I do not know about moths in woollen insulation but have experience of dealing with box
moth infestation.

The larvae actually eat wool*. In carpets, in clothes, and then someone has the bright
idea of using it for insulation; out of sight, in the dark, and nice and warm and dry but
without first pre-treating it with borax or similar.

The case does not allege that is was negligent to use woollen insulation.

Which is a pity as there appears to plenty of expert evidence which could be called in
support of the suggestion that using "untreated" woolen insulation most definitely is.

From which it surely follows, that anyone purchasing a house for £32.5* million could

"reasonably expect" that any wool insulation which "had" recently been installed, to
have been properly treated. Without any obligation on their part to carry out
tests to confirm that fact.


bb

[Simon Parker]

[...]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase
That's precisely the point. The vendors admit they had the property treated in 2018.
Now if the company involved refused to give any sort of guarantee as to the
effectiveness
of that treatment or how long it would last, then the vendors can't claim they didn't
realise the problem might well re-occur in the future.
Whereas if the contractors did give any such guarantee, thus allowing the vendors
to sell with confidence, then in the event of any failure it's open to the vendors to
take action against the contractors

You've clearly had sight of the contract and the terms and conditions of the guarantee
as you seem to know so much about them. Are you able to provide a link to them or even
better post a copy of them here?
If you have not seen the actual contract for this transaction, or one of a similar
nature, and are unsighted as to whether or not it contained any guarantees as to future
effectiveness of the treatment, I can assure you that not all treatments of this nature
from reputable companies are backed with some form of guarantee. In fact, I would go
so far as to say the majority proffer no guarantee whatsoever.
For example, a well known lawn treatment company do not guarantee to kill all of the
weeds they spray and will only perform a re-treatment without charge if fewer than 80%
of the weeds were killed by the treatment.
Ditto for the company that treated mice in a friend's loft. And rats in another
friend's garden. And the company that treated a neighbour's buxus for box moth larvae.
Etc.
Would now be a good time to review the differences between specific performance,
reasonable endeavours (P&O Property v Norwich Union [1994]), all reasonable endeavours
(Rhodia International Holdings Ltd v Huntsman International LLC [2007] and CPC Group
Ltd v Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Company [2010]), all reasonable but
commercially prudent endeavours (CPC Group Ltd v Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment
Company [2010]) and best endeavours (Jet2.com v Blackpool Airports [2012]) or can we
leave that for another time as I need to head into a meeting?

You appear to be again totally missing the point, and in the process putting
yourself to a lot of unnecessary trouble.

Sadly, not only can I recite the above off the top of my head, but I
have reference documents readily to hand which quote them.

It really is not trouble citing them.

Post by billy bookcase
The only point at issue is this.
If there is no such guarantee possible in respect of a very serious ongoing
problem, then it becomes even more incumbent on the vendor to apprise
potential purchasers of that problem

Incumbent is a binary state rather than a spectrum. Either it is
obligatory / mandatory / compulsory / required / whatever description of
of incumbent you prefer or it is not. Something cannot become "even
more incumbent".

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase
Is the lower figure for actual removal, rather than maybe drilling yet more holes
and pumping in, even greater amounts of pesticide ?

I was not in court and can only repeat what has been reported by those that were in
court.
However, the property vendor and respondent in the case is a high-end property
developer and is a director both of a real estate letting company and a real estate
management company therefore I believe it is reasonable to assume both that he has
access to contacts that may be able to complete the necessary work and that he may be
able to get the work completed for a price below the typical market rate.

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Simon Parker
Given that the latter figure is greater than the build cost for the entire property,
(including extensive recent remodelling), the true cost is likely to be somewhere
between the two, (but closer to the first, I would suggest).

Its a very big house with a large number of rooms as pictured in the Guardian
And while the L10 million quote for replacement sounds a bit on the "optimistic"
side, to say the very least, the very specific figure quoted by the vendor
He also says the couple's valuation of how much it would cost to remedy the problem is
massively overblown, arguing that the true repair bill would be L162,652.
:unquote
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/12/couple-sues-house-seller-for-36m-over-moth-infested-london-mansion#img-1
seems to be rather misplaced under the circumstances, As presumably that was the
cost of the previous "treatment"

Why do you presume that?

Where else do you suppose he got the figure from ?

I repeat the paragraph above, to which you didn't respond:

"However, the property vendor and respondent in the case is a high-end
property developer and is a director both of a real estate letting
company and a real estate management company therefore I believe it is
reasonable to assume both that he has access to contacts that may be
able to complete the necessary work and that he may be able to get the
work completed for a price below the typical market rate."

I will add that he was also responsible the the expansion and extensive
remodelling of the property and will therefore be well aware of the
costs involved in the various elements thereof.

Post by billy bookcase
Or are you suggestingh he paid a) less, or b) more ?

(a) Less.

Post by billy bookcase
And why ?

Because fumigators do not earn in excess of £2m per annum, even in
Notting Hill.

Post by billy bookcase

If I were a gambling man, (I'm not, but if I were...), I'd wager that the property was
fumigated with sulfuryl fluoride, methyl bromide, or similar which is why the occupants
(and their dog) needed to decamp to a hotel for several days whilst the treatment was
carried out. Treatment starts at around Ł300 for an "average" house adding around Ł50
per additional room.
Even assuming a price of Ł1,000 for setting up and quadrupling the cost per room to
account for larger than average rooms would allow for treating over 800 rooms at the
price quoted in court. I accept that the property is large, but surely not *that*
large?

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Simon Parker

Post by billy bookcase
As on the basis of no technical knowledge whatsoever it nevertheless seems
reasonable to assume that fumigation will only be a temporary solution unless
it "permeates all of the wool insulation and any moth eggs or larvae it may
contain." As otherwise once the house is again safe for humans it will presumably
also be safe for any emerging moths as well. Who can then start breeding again.

I fear that your acknowledged lack of technical knowledge has likely led you astray.
Preferred fumigants for such treatments are gas and do indeed "permeates all of the
wool insulation and any moth eggs or larvae it may contain".
If treated with sufficiently concentrated fumigant for sufficiently long enough all
eggs, larvae and pupae are killed.

Except it wasn't and so they weren't.

You have proof that it was the original infestation that wasn't cleared
sufficiently rather than a new infestation that took place whilst the
new owners were resident in the property?

Post by billy bookcase
Your point being ?

As above: "I fear that your acknowledged lack of technical knowledge has
likely led you astray."

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase
The larvae actually eat wool*. In carpets, in clothes, and then someone has the bright
idea of using it for insulation; out of sight, in the dark, and nice and warm and dry
but
without first pre-treating it with borax or similar.

The case does not allege that is was negligent to use woollen insulation.

Which is a pity as there appears to plenty of expert evidence which could be called in
support of the suggestion that using "untreated" woolen insulation most definitely is.

Given that the vendor was responsible for the extension and remodelling
of the property, you are attempting to make a distinction that makes no
difference in law.

Post by billy bookcase

From which it surely follows, that anyone purchasing a house for Ł32.5* million could

"reasonably expect" that any wool insulation which "had" recently been installed, to
have been properly treated. Without any obligation on their part to carry out
tests to confirm that fact.

Given that you have made several erroneous claims and assumptions to get
to this point, I would respectfully suggest that it cannot be concluded
that anything "surely follows" from anything you have said.

With the exception of the single point you have acknowledged that your
posts are made "on the basis of no technical knowledge whatsoever".

Regards

S.P.

[billy bookcase]

"Simon Parker" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...

much snippage

You have proof that it was the original infestation that wasn't cleared sufficiently
rather than a new infestation that took place whilst the new owners were resident in
the property?

But if its a "new" infestation, why is the vendor suggesting the new owners
should spend £162,652 on "repairs" - which according to you at least
means replacing all the wool insulkation which was already there
when they moved in ?


bb

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Simon Parker
An interesting question before the high court as Iya Patarkatsishvili
and Dr Yevhen Hunyak sue William Woodward-Fisher from whom they bought a
seven-bedroom early Victorian mansion in Notting Hill for £32.5m in May
2019.
Their claim is that the mansion is infested with millions of moths,
infesting the wool insulation behind the walls and ceilings, which are
destroying clothing, and ruining their wine with, at one point, moths
landing on the couple and their two children's toothbrushes, cutlery and
food, with glasses of wine having to be tipped away as moths were
floating in them.
John McGhee KC, for the couple, said they were swatting away about 100
moths a day and even after intensive sprays and expert treatment still
kill around 35 moths a day.
Their claim is that Woodward-Fisher is either guilty of fraudulent
misrepresentation or was negligent in failing to disclose previous moth
infestations when answering pre-sale questions about the possibility of
"vermin" in the house.
The couple are seeking more than £36m which includes Woodward-Fisher
buying back the house and compensating them for all expenses and
inconvenience suffered. They further claim it will cost in excess of
£10m to replace all the woollen insulation in the building.
Woodward-Fisher, on the other hand, denies all claims insisting that he
gave honest and full replies on the pre-sale form and that, as far as he
knew, any previous moth problems had been eliminated by the time of the
move. He also disputes the cost of remedial work arguing that the more
accurate repair bill would be £162,652.
Jonathan Seitler KC, for Woodward-Fisher, said he was honest when
answering the question about possible previous "vermin infestations", as
Woodward-Fisher told his solicitor they had experienced problems with
moths only to be assured that moths were not vermin and not relevant to
the question.
Part of the legal debate therefore hinges on whether moths are vermin
and have to be included when answering the question about "vermin
infestations".
McGhee told Mr Justice Fancourt that Woodward-Fisher was well aware of
the presence and cause of the infestation as treatment had necessitated
Woodward-Fisher and his family to check into a hotel and remove their
dog from the property to clear the way for a major spray to treat the
problem.
Seitler said his client had enlisted pest control in 2018 who "appeared
to have succeeded in their task by July 2018", and moths were no longer
a problem when they moved out in 2019.
The couple have taken a multi-pronged approach with the court asking
that the house sale be reversed on the basis of "fraudulent
misrepresentation" giving them back the £32.5m purchase price, plus
compensation for other losses, (including £50,000 for moth-shredded
clothes), and more than £3.7m paid in stamp duty.
They have also presented an alternative case seeking £16m to mark their
losses and the diminished value of the property.
Alternatively, they seek around £13m to cover losses and the cost of
further works.
It will be interesting to see how this one turns out, but it is expected
that Mr Justice Fancourt will reserve his decision until a later date.
Are moths vermin?
How would you have answered the question if you were selling the property?
Regards
S.P.

I don't have a an opinion, but if they are not vermin then a question about
invertebrate infestations needs to be added to pre-sale inquiry forms. I would
certainly want to know about previous moth, cockroach or Pharoah's Ant
infestations if I was buying a house. And the questions all need wording like
the neighbour dispute question to include previous problems even if the seller
honestly and reasonably believes they have cured the problem.

[Simon Parker]

[...]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Simon Parker
Are moths vermin?
How would you have answered the question if you were selling the property?

I don't have a an opinion, but if they are not vermin then a question about
invertebrate infestations needs to be added to pre-sale inquiry forms. I would
certainly want to know about previous moth, cockroach or Pharoah's Ant
infestations if I was buying a house. And the questions all need wording like
the neighbour dispute question to include previous problems even if the seller
honestly and reasonably believes they have cured the problem.

I know without needing to look it up that cockroaches are definitely
considered vermin and would need to be included when answering a
question about vermin.

As I've said in a parallel post, the phrase I've seen refers to "pests"
rather than "vermin" and it is clear that moths, cockroaches, ants and
indeed any kind of infestation would be covered under "pests" even if
not technically "vermin"

IMO, the question and guidance on Japanese Knotweed is perhaps the most
stringent on the TA6 form.

Is the property affected by Japanese knotweed? Yes | No | Not known

The guidance from the Law Society in their explanatory notes says, in part:

"If you are unsure that Japanese knotweed exists above or below ground
or whether it has previously been managed on the property, please
indicate this as 'Not known'. If 'No' is chosen as an answer, the seller
must be certain that no rhizome (root) is present in the ground of the
property, or within 3 metres of the property boundary even if there are
no visible signs above ground."

Answering "No" requires you to be "certain that no rhizome is present in
the ground of the property or within three metres of the property
boundary". Are you going to dig up your entire garden and ask your
surrounding neighbours to do the same within 3 metres of the boundary to
enable you to answer "No" or are you just going to tick "Not known"?

The revised guidance, (issued in February 2020), makes the question all
but useless from the buyer's point of view so is less useful to them
than it was before the guidance was issued which seems to be a waste of
everyone's time.

Regards

S.P.

[Martin Brown]

Post by Simon Parker
[...]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Simon Parker
Are moths vermin?
How would you have answered the question if you were selling the property?

I don't have a an opinion, but if they are not vermin then a question about
invertebrate infestations needs to be added to pre-sale inquiry forms. I would
certainly want to know about previous moth, cockroach or Pharoah's Ant
infestations if I was buying a house. And the questions all need wording like
the neighbour dispute question to include previous problems even if the seller
honestly and reasonably believes they have cured the problem.

I know without needing to look it up that cockroaches are definitely
considered vermin and would need to be included when answering a
question about vermin.

Pharoh ants are another potential gotcha with modern central heating
larger properties with ducted air CH can end up with impossible to
eradicate number of them lurking in dark corners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaoh_ant

I'm slightly concerned about the wool eco-insulation and plague of moths
issue as our VH has wool based loft insulation.

Post by Simon Parker
As I've said in a parallel post, the phrase I've seen refers to "pests"
rather than "vermin" and it is clear that moths, cockroaches, ants and
indeed any kind of infestation would be covered under "pests" even if
not technically "vermin"
IMO, the question and guidance on Japanese Knotweed is perhaps the most
stringent on the TA6 form.
Is the property affected by Japanese knotweed?  Yes | No | Not known
"If you are unsure that Japanese knotweed exists above or below ground
or whether it has previously been managed on the property, please
indicate this as 'Not known'. If 'No' is chosen as an answer, the seller
must be certain that no rhizome (root) is present in the ground of the
property, or within 3 metres of the property boundary even if there are
no visible signs above ground."

Japanese Knotweed gets a bit of a bad press. It *is* invasive and
vigorous but it was grown as an ornamental by the Victorians and I
played in a half derelict Victorian garden full of it as a child.

Victorian concrete foundations could resist its runners well enough. It
is the cheap and nasty foundations on modern build housing that yields
and also to bamboo runners (which will become much more of a problem as
the climate warms). They really can be *very* penetrating.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/11/big-british-bamboo-crisis-invaded-my-beautiful-home

Post by Simon Parker
Answering "No" requires you to be "certain that no rhizome is present in
the ground of the property or within three metres of the property
boundary".  Are you going to dig up your entire garden and ask your
surrounding neighbours to do the same within 3 metres of the boundary to
enable you to answer "No" or are you just going to tick "Not known"?

I know where there are places with the stuff growing (and under official
management) well away from any modern buildings. It is very tenacious
and has not been killed by nearly 5 years of regular annual treatment.
Equally the patch has not got any bigger.

Post by Simon Parker
The revised guidance, (issued in February 2020), makes the question all
but useless from the buyer's point of view so is less useful to them
than it was before the guidance was issued which seems to be a waste of
everyone's time.

It is only really a threat to modern build homes with weak foundations
(or very old ones with no foundations).

[Simon Parker]

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Simon Parker

Post by Roger Hayter
I don't have a an opinion, but if they are not vermin then a question about
invertebrate infestations needs to be added to pre-sale inquiry forms. I would
certainly want to know about previous moth, cockroach or Pharoah's Ant
infestations if I was buying a house. And the questions all need wording like
the neighbour dispute question to include previous problems even if the seller
honestly and reasonably believes they have cured the problem.

I know without needing to look it up that cockroaches are definitely
considered vermin and would need to be included when answering a
question about vermin.

Pharoh ants are another potential gotcha with modern central heating
larger properties with ducted air CH can end up with impossible to
eradicate number of them lurking in dark corners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaoh_ant

Why would sealing up the place, (as far as practicable), maintaining a
temperature between 20°C and 25°C, and then filling it with sulphuryl
fluoride at a concentration of 21.3 (+/- 1.3) g/m3 for 48 hours not be
effective? (Genuine question having asked a man that knows about these
things.)

Post by Martin Brown
I'm slightly concerned about the wool eco-insulation and plague of moths
issue as our VH has wool based loft insulation.

Probably worth checking if the woollen insulation used was treated with
borax prior to being installed.

Random related fact: Be careful when using pallets for DIY construction
projects in the garden. Pallets labelled "HT" have been heat treated
making the timber more durable and less prone to rot.

However, pallets labelled "MB" have been treated with methyl bromide
which will leach out over time and so they should not be used in
projects involving flora and fauna, (e.g. constructing a DIY compost heap).

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Simon Parker
As I've said in a parallel post, the phrase I've seen refers to
"pests" rather than "vermin" and it is clear that moths, cockroaches,
ants and indeed any kind of infestation would be covered under "pests"
even if not technically "vermin"
IMO, the question and guidance on Japanese Knotweed is perhaps the
most stringent on the TA6 form.
Is the property affected by Japanese knotweed?  Yes | No | Not known
"If you are unsure that Japanese knotweed exists above or below ground
or whether it has previously been managed on the property, please
indicate this as 'Not known'. If 'No' is chosen as an answer, the
seller must be certain that no rhizome (root) is present in the ground
of the property, or within 3 metres of the property boundary even if
there are no visible signs above ground."

Japanese Knotweed gets a bit of a bad press. It *is* invasive and
vigorous but it was grown as an ornamental by the Victorians and I
played in a half derelict Victorian garden full of it as a child.

As this is a legal newsgroup, I will respectfully remind you that
Japanese Knotweed is listed in Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 is is subject to Section 14 of the Act which makes
it an offence to plant or cause it to grow in the wild.

It is also classified as controlled waste by the Environmental
Protection Act 1990 which means the disposal thereof is tightly governed
to licensed facilities only.

You may consider that "a bit of a bad press". Unsurprisingly, I am
inclined to look at the matter differently. :-)

Post by Martin Brown
Victorian concrete foundations could resist its runners well enough. It
is the cheap and nasty foundations on modern build housing that yields
and also to bamboo runners (which will become much more of a problem as
the climate warms). They really can be *very* penetrating.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/11/big-british-
bamboo-crisis-invaded-my-beautiful-home

I have volunteered in the past that a family member works in the
horticulture industry. Earlier this year, their company undertook a job
on a garden which had been landscaped by a person or persons unknown, no
doubt at considerable cost to the owner of the property at the time.

Included in the garden were two patches of "black bamboo" (Phyllostachys
nigra) measuring approximately 2.5metres x 1metre each.

My relative's services were engaged because, contrary to what was
specified at the time of installation, no physical containment barriers
had been installed and the bamboo had started to spread under a nearby
patch of (no doubt equally expensive) artificial 'grass'.

The initial job involved lifting the 'grass', removing all running
rhizomes and then replacing the 'grass'. The cost for this could be
considered reasonable, (about 1 man day's labour).

A follow-up job, involved completely excavating the area, and removing
both sets of bamboo, installing physical containment barriers and then
replanting the bamboo. The cost for this work ran into four figures. :-(

Also, it isn't just damage to foundations. If one's bamboo spreads into
a neighbouring property, it is considered a trespass and one becomes
liable both for the trespass and for the damage arising therefrom.
Which is not limited only to foundations but would include fences,
paths, border shrubs and plants, etc.

My relative has an employee that produces CPR Part 35 Compliant Expert
Witness Reports (aka CPR 35 Compliant Reports) on bamboo as part of his
day job. No shortage of this type of work, apparently. :-(

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Simon Parker
Answering "No" requires you to be "certain that no rhizome is present
in the ground of the property or within three metres of the property
boundary".  Are you going to dig up your entire garden and ask your
surrounding neighbours to do the same within 3 metres of the boundary
to enable you to answer "No" or are you just going to tick "Not known"?

I know where there are places with the stuff growing (and under official
management) well away from any modern buildings. It is very tenacious
and has not been killed by nearly 5 years of regular annual treatment.
Equally the patch has not got any bigger.

I am told by a "man in the know", that an injection of neat, (i.e.
undiluted), 480 g/L glyphosate into the stem using a hypodermic syringe
will pretty much see it off almost instantly (21 days or so). (Easier
and better to use a stem injection kit if one has a lot to treat.)
However, it would be a clear breach of the relevant legislation for a
professional to do this as they would be exceeding the maximum stated
dosage rate. Similarly, it would be a breach for somebody that wasn't a
qualified professional to purchase the herbicide required. But, if one
were to find some Glyphosate 480 in one's shed, purchased a stem
injection kit and DIY treated it in this manner, I am reliably told that
the Japanese Knotweed will be gone in a few treatments with no laws
having been broken, to the best of my knowledge. :-)

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Simon Parker
The revised guidance, (issued in February 2020), makes the question
all but useless from the buyer's point of view so is less useful to
them than it was before the guidance was issued which seems to be a
waste of everyone's time.

It is only really a threat to modern build homes with weak foundations
(or very old ones with no foundations).

And if it comes up under one's path at the end of the garden, well away
from the house, having spread under the fence from next door, what then?
(See above regarding trespass and legal liability for damage arising
therefrom).

Regards

S.P.

[Nick Odell]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 09:45:15 +0000, Simon Parker

Post by Simon Parker
An interesting question before the high court as Iya Patarkatsishvili
and Dr Yevhen Hunyak sue William Woodward-Fisher from whom they bought a
seven-bedroom early Victorian mansion in Notting Hill for £32.5m in May
2019.
Their claim is that the mansion is infested with millions of moths,
infesting the wool insulation behind the walls and ceilings, which are
destroying clothing, and ruining their wine with, at one point, moths
landing on the couple and their two children's toothbrushes, cutlery and
food, with glasses of wine having to be tipped away as moths were
floating in them.
John McGhee KC, for the couple, said they were swatting away about 100
moths a day and even after intensive sprays and expert treatment still
kill around 35 moths a day.
Their claim is that Woodward-Fisher is either guilty of fraudulent
misrepresentation or was negligent in failing to disclose previous moth
infestations when answering pre-sale questions about the possibility of
"vermin" in the house.
The couple are seeking more than £36m which includes Woodward-Fisher
buying back the house and compensating them for all expenses and
inconvenience suffered. They further claim it will cost in excess of
£10m to replace all the woollen insulation in the building.
Woodward-Fisher, on the other hand, denies all claims insisting that he
gave honest and full replies on the pre-sale form and that, as far as he
knew, any previous moth problems had been eliminated by the time of the
move. He also disputes the cost of remedial work arguing that the more
accurate repair bill would be £162,652.
Jonathan Seitler KC, for Woodward-Fisher, said he was honest when
answering the question about possible previous "vermin infestations", as
Woodward-Fisher told his solicitor they had experienced problems with
moths only to be assured that moths were not vermin and not relevant to
the question.
Part of the legal debate therefore hinges on whether moths are vermin
and have to be included when answering the question about "vermin
infestations".
McGhee told Mr Justice Fancourt that Woodward-Fisher was well aware of
the presence and cause of the infestation as treatment had necessitated
Woodward-Fisher and his family to check into a hotel and remove their
dog from the property to clear the way for a major spray to treat the
problem.
Seitler said his client had enlisted pest control in 2018 who "appeared
to have succeeded in their task by July 2018", and moths were no longer
a problem when they moved out in 2019.
The couple have taken a multi-pronged approach with the court asking
that the house sale be reversed on the basis of "fraudulent
misrepresentation" giving them back the £32.5m purchase price, plus
compensation for other losses, (including £50,000 for moth-shredded
clothes), and more than £3.7m paid in stamp duty.
They have also presented an alternative case seeking £16m to mark their
losses and the diminished value of the property.
Alternatively, they seek around £13m to cover losses and the cost of
further works.
It will be interesting to see how this one turns out, but it is expected
that Mr Justice Fancourt will reserve his decision until a later date.
Are moths vermin?
How would you have answered the question if you were selling the property?

A few years ago I was interested in buying a property at an auction
and when the document bundle arrived[1] there was an unexpected
change: the property no longer belonged to "Fred Smith" but now was
being sold by "Joe Bloggs"[2] who had answered every single enquiry
"not known."

It didn't take long to discover that "Joe Bloggs" was a very junior
employee at the auctioneers and for me to come to the conclusion that
he had never even seen the property and the title had been transferred
so that he could answer "not known" in complete and fulsome
truthfulness.

Needless to say, from my point of view they don't sell bargepoles long
enough - but somebody bought that property.

Nick
[1]Do they still do things this way? Maybe it was more than a few
years ago
[2]All names have been changed

[Clive Arthur]

On 13/11/2024 09:45, Simon Parker wrote:

<snip>

Post by Simon Parker
Are moths vermin?

From Wikipedia...

"The term [Vermin] derives from the Latin vermis (worm), and was
originally used for the worm-like larvae of certain insects, many of
which infest foodstuffs."

...and as lawyer types seem to like a bit of the old "Hic, Haec, Hoc,
Hickory, Dickory, Dock", then it seems that moths would fit the bill
quite well.

[JNugent]

Post by Simon Parker
An interesting question before the high court as Iya Patarkatsishvili
and Dr Yevhen Hunyak sue William Woodward-Fisher from whom they bought a
seven-bedroom early Victorian mansion in Notting Hill for £32.5m in May
2019.
Their claim is that the mansion is infested with millions of moths,
infesting the wool insulation behind the walls and ceilings, which are
destroying clothing, and ruining their wine with, at one point, moths
landing on the couple and their two children's toothbrushes, cutlery and
food, with glasses of wine having to be tipped away as moths were
floating in them.
John McGhee KC, for the couple, said they were swatting away about 100
moths a day and even after intensive sprays and expert treatment still
kill around 35 moths a day.
Their claim is that Woodward-Fisher is either guilty of fraudulent
misrepresentation or was negligent in failing to disclose previous moth
infestations when answering pre-sale questions about the possibility of
"vermin" in the house.
The couple are seeking more than £36m which includes Woodward-Fisher
buying back the house and compensating them for all expenses and
inconvenience suffered.  They further claim it will cost in excess of
£10m to replace all the woollen insulation in the building.
Woodward-Fisher, on the other hand, denies all claims insisting that he
gave honest and full replies on the pre-sale form and that, as far as he
knew, any previous moth problems had been eliminated by the time of the
move.  He also disputes the cost of remedial work arguing that the more
accurate repair bill would be £162,652.
Jonathan Seitler KC, for Woodward-Fisher, said he was honest when
answering the question about possible previous "vermin infestations", as
Woodward-Fisher told his solicitor they had experienced problems with
moths only to be assured that moths were not vermin and not relevant to
the question.
Part of the legal debate therefore hinges on whether moths are vermin
and have to be included when answering the question about "vermin
infestations".
McGhee told Mr Justice Fancourt that Woodward-Fisher was well aware of
the presence and cause of the infestation as treatment had necessitated
Woodward-Fisher and his family to check into a hotel and remove their
dog from the property to clear the way for a major spray to treat the
problem.
Seitler said his client had enlisted pest control in 2018 who "appeared
to have succeeded in their task by July 2018", and moths were no longer
a problem when they moved out in 2019.
The couple have taken a multi-pronged approach with the court asking
that the house sale be reversed on the basis of "fraudulent
misrepresentation" giving them back the £32.5m purchase price, plus
compensation for other losses, (including £50,000 for moth-shredded
clothes), and more than £3.7m paid in stamp duty.
They have also presented an alternative case seeking £16m to mark their
losses and the diminished value of the property.
Alternatively, they seek around £13m to cover losses and the cost of
further works.
It will be interesting to see how this one turns out, but it is expected
that Mr Justice Fancourt will reserve his decision until a later date.
Are moths vermin?
How would you have answered the question if you were selling the property?
Regards
S.P.

Are ANY creatures "vermin"?

I suggest not, in that every species has a recognised right to survive
and not to go extinct.

But...

"Vermin" and its derivatives surely apply to creatures which are
unwantedly sharing living space with humans and causing some sort of
harm to humans as a result.

So yes, moths, like a great many other creatures, can be vermin, but are
not so automatically.

[billy bookcase]

Post by JNugent
Are ANY creatures "vermin"?
I suggest not, in that every species has a recognised right to survive and not to go
extinct.

Much the same as "weeds" then.

Post by JNugent
But...
"Vermin" and its derivatives surely apply to creatures which are unwantedly sharing
living space with humans and causing some sort of harm to humans as a result.
So yes, moths, like a great many other creatures, can be vermin, but are not so
automatically.

But neither are they automatically "moths".

"Moth" is merely a classification given to a certain category of insects
or to be more precise

quote:

Moths are a group of insects that includes all members of the order
Lepidoptera that are not butterflies.[1] They were previously classified
as suborder Heterocera, but the group is paraphyletic with respect to
butterflies (suborder Rhopalocera) and neither subordinate taxon is
used in modern classifications.

:unquote

Except the moths themselves know nothing of this. And this definition
and categorisation is a purely human creation and is no more or less
"valid" than calling them "pests" or "vermin".

Rewatching the "Ascent of Man" one of the opening shots was of the
African Savanna with the good Dr Brownowski's voice-over commentary
"These Greveys zebra have been grazing the African Savanna for
millions of years" Or similar.
Wrong ! They've only been called zebra for maybe the last two thousand
years and Greveys zebras since 1882. This isn't being picky but pointing
out the basic artificiality of all taxonomy.

Plus the white baby representing the evolution of early man - in East
Africa.

A lot of this stuff simply isn't as impressive when watching it the
second time round.


bb

[Simon Parker]

Post by JNugent

Post by Simon Parker
An interesting question before the high court as Iya Patarkatsishvili
and Dr Yevhen Hunyak sue William Woodward-Fisher from whom they bought
a seven-bedroom early Victorian mansion in Notting Hill for £32.5m in
May 2019.
Their claim is that the mansion is infested with millions of moths,
infesting the wool insulation behind the walls and ceilings, which are
destroying clothing, and ruining their wine with, at one point, moths
landing on the couple and their two children's toothbrushes, cutlery
and food, with glasses of wine having to be tipped away as moths were
floating in them.
John McGhee KC, for the couple, said they were swatting away about 100
moths a day and even after intensive sprays and expert treatment still
kill around 35 moths a day.
Their claim is that Woodward-Fisher is either guilty of fraudulent
misrepresentation or was negligent in failing to disclose previous
moth infestations when answering pre-sale questions about the
possibility of "vermin" in the house.
The couple are seeking more than £36m which includes Woodward-Fisher
buying back the house and compensating them for all expenses and
inconvenience suffered.  They further claim it will cost in excess of
£10m to replace all the woollen insulation in the building.
Woodward-Fisher, on the other hand, denies all claims insisting that
he gave honest and full replies on the pre-sale form and that, as far
as he knew, any previous moth problems had been eliminated by the time
of the move.  He also disputes the cost of remedial work arguing that
the more accurate repair bill would be £162,652.
Jonathan Seitler KC, for Woodward-Fisher, said he was honest when
answering the question about possible previous "vermin infestations",
as Woodward-Fisher told his solicitor they had experienced problems
with moths only to be assured that moths were not vermin and not
relevant to the question.
Part of the legal debate therefore hinges on whether moths are vermin
and have to be included when answering the question about "vermin
infestations".
McGhee told Mr Justice Fancourt that Woodward-Fisher was well aware of
the presence and cause of the infestation as treatment had
necessitated Woodward-Fisher and his family to check into a hotel and
remove their dog from the property to clear the way for a major spray
to treat the problem.
Seitler said his client had enlisted pest control in 2018 who
"appeared to have succeeded in their task by July 2018", and moths
were no longer a problem when they moved out in 2019.
The couple have taken a multi-pronged approach with the court asking
that the house sale be reversed on the basis of "fraudulent
misrepresentation" giving them back the £32.5m purchase price, plus
compensation for other losses, (including £50,000 for moth-shredded
clothes), and more than £3.7m paid in stamp duty.
They have also presented an alternative case seeking £16m to mark
their losses and the diminished value of the property.
Alternatively, they seek around £13m to cover losses and the cost of
further works.
It will be interesting to see how this one turns out, but it is
expected that Mr Justice Fancourt will reserve his decision until a
later date.
Are moths vermin?
How would you have answered the question if you were selling the property?

Are ANY creatures "vermin"?

Yes.

As this is a legal newsgroup, I must ask that you excuse me if I provide
a more detailed answer, based on the law, rather than my own thoughts on
the matter as you seem to have done here. :-)

For further details, please see below.

Post by JNugent
I suggest not, in that every species has a recognised right to survive
and not to go extinct.

Section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 [^1] disagree with
your view, insofar as it is an offence to release or allow to escape
into the wild an animal which is not ordinarily resident in or a regular
visitor to Great Britain or which is listed in Part 1 of Schedule 9. [^2].

You may consider that "every species has a recognised right to survive"
but that right does not extend to Great Britain for certain species.

Post by JNugent
But...
"Vermin" and its derivatives surely apply to creatures which are
unwantedly sharing living space with humans and causing some sort of
harm to humans as a result.

Thankfully, the question "Which mammals and other animals are classified
as 'vermin'?" was asked in the House of Lords back on the 8th October
2003 [^3] and, to the best of my knowledge, Lord Whitty's answer - on
behalf of HMG, which I reproduce below, is still correct:

<quote>
There is no definition of the term "vermin" in UK law. In such a
situation the Oxford Dictionary definition should be applied.

The Oxford Dictionary defines "vermin" as "Animals of a noxious or
objectionable kind. Originally applied to reptiles, stealthy, or slinky
animals, and various wild beasts; now, excluding in US and Australia,
almost entirely restricted to those animals or birds which prey upon
preserved game..."

The Small Ground Vermin Traps Order 1958 and the various Spring Traps
Approval Orders, refer to "small ground vermin". Neither the orders nor
the Pests Act 1954, under which they are made, define this term or
provide an exclusive list of species. However, the following animals
are listed under various orders: moles, grey squirrels, rabbits, mink,
stoats, weasels, rabbits, rats, and mice.

Traps approved under the Spring Traps Approval Order 1995 do not apply
to small ground vermin listed in Schedules 5 and 6 to the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981. This means that red squirrels, dormice, water
voles, shrews, hedgehogs, polecats and a number of other species are
excluded.
<end quote>

Post by JNugent
So yes, moths, like a great many other creatures, can be vermin, but are
not so automatically.

Do you have a cite that supports that statement please?

Regards

S.P.

[^1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69/section/14
[^2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69/schedule/9
[^3]
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldhansrd/vo031008/text/31008w02.htm

[Norman Wells]

Post by Simon Parker

Post by JNugent
"Vermin" and its derivatives surely apply to creatures which are
unwantedly sharing living space with humans and causing some sort of
harm to humans as a result.

Thankfully, the question "Which mammals and other animals are classified
as 'vermin'?" was asked in the House of Lords back on the 8th October
2003 [^3] and, to the best of my knowledge, Lord Whitty's answer - on
<quote>
There is no definition of the term "vermin" in UK law.

Correct. That's the domain of linguistics and usage, not the law,
except in specific legal contexts where any alternative or narrower
definition to be applied is specified.

Post by Simon Parker
In such a
situation the Oxford Dictionary definition should be applied.

That is not in fact the legal position. I'm glad to see that the
principle of applying dictionary definitions to determine what ordinary
English words mean is alive and well, as it should be and as I've said
before. However, the Oxford Dictionary has no special place in
interpreting what is meant by any particular word. It's a matter of
what the word means in ordinary English that matters, and any number of
dictionaries can and should be consulted for that purpose.

If you do that, you will find that any number of that any number
specifically include insects in the term 'vermin'. Getting back to the
original point, moths, being insects, fall within 'vermin' beyond any
shadow of doubt, and they have to be declared if any vermin have to be.

Post by Simon Parker
The Oxford Dictionary defines "vermin" as "Animals of a noxious or
objectionable kind.  Originally applied to reptiles, stealthy, or slinky
animals, and various wild beasts; now, excluding in US and Australia,
almost entirely restricted to those animals or birds which prey upon
preserved game..."

Whereas Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary starts its definition with
'a collective name for obnoxious insects such as ...'.

Post by Simon Parker
The Small Ground Vermin Traps Order 1958 and the various Spring Traps
Approval Orders, refer to "small ground vermin".  Neither the orders nor
the Pests Act 1954, under which they are made, define this term or
provide an exclusive list of species.  However, the following animals
are listed under various orders: moles, grey squirrels, rabbits, mink,
stoats, weasels, rabbits, rats, and mice.
Traps approved under the Spring Traps Approval Order 1995 do not apply
to small ground vermin listed in Schedules 5 and 6 to the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981.  This means that red squirrels, dormice, water
voles, shrews, hedgehogs, polecats and a number of other species are
excluded.
<end quote>

Any legal document including any Statute can define what it means or
includes by any term used in it. But that only applies within the
context of that document, and not outside it.

Post by Simon Parker

Post by JNugent
So yes, moths, like a great many other creatures, can be vermin, but
are not so automatically.

Do you have a cite that supports that statement please?

That's unnecessary. It's just obvious and self-apparent depending on
the effect they have

[JNugent]

Post by Simon Parker

Post by JNugent
"Vermin" and its derivatives surely apply to creatures which are
unwantedly sharing living space with humans and causing some sort of
harm to humans as a result.

Thankfully, the question "Which mammals and other animals are
classified as 'vermin'?" was asked in the House of Lords back on the
8th October 2003 [^3] and, to the best of my knowledge, Lord Whitty's
<quote>
There is no definition of the term "vermin" in UK law.

Correct.  That's the domain of linguistics and usage, not the law,
except in specific legal contexts where any alternative or narrower
definition to be applied is specified.

Post by Simon Parker
In such a situation the Oxford Dictionary definition should be applied.

That is not in fact the legal position.  I'm glad to see that the
principle of applying dictionary definitions to determine what ordinary
English words mean is alive and well, as it should be and as I've said
before.  However, the Oxford Dictionary has no special place in
interpreting what is meant by any particular word.  It's a matter of
what the word means in ordinary English that matters, and any number of
dictionaries can and should be consulted for that purpose.
If you do that, you will find that any number of that any number
specifically include insects in the term 'vermin'.  Getting back to the
original point, moths, being insects, fall within 'vermin' beyond any
shadow of doubt, and they have to be declared if any vermin have to be.

Post by Simon Parker
The Oxford Dictionary defines "vermin" as "Animals of a noxious or
objectionable kind.  Originally applied to reptiles, stealthy, or
slinky animals, and various wild beasts; now, excluding in US and
Australia, almost entirely restricted to those animals or birds which
prey upon preserved game..."

Whereas Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary starts its definition with
'a collective name for obnoxious insects such as ...'.

Post by Simon Parker
The Small Ground Vermin Traps Order 1958 and the various Spring Traps
Approval Orders, refer to "small ground vermin".  Neither the orders
nor the Pests Act 1954, under which they are made, define this term or
provide an exclusive list of species.  However, the following animals
are listed under various orders: moles, grey squirrels, rabbits, mink,
stoats, weasels, rabbits, rats, and mice.
Traps approved under the Spring Traps Approval Order 1995 do not apply
to small ground vermin listed in Schedules 5 and 6 to the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981.  This means that red squirrels, dormice, water
voles, shrews, hedgehogs, polecats and a number of other species are
excluded.
<end quote>

Any legal document including any Statute can define what it means or
includes by any term used in it.  But that only applies within the
context of that document, and not outside it.

Post by Simon Parker

Post by JNugent
So yes, moths, like a great many other creatures, can be vermin, but
are not so automatically.

Do you have a cite that supports that statement please?

That's unnecessary.  It's just obvious and self-apparent depending on
the effect they have

Indeed.

Many thanks (and sorry for tardiness during my holiday).

[Simon Parker]

Post by JNugent

Post by Simon Parker
Do you have a cite that supports that statement please?

That's unnecessary.  It's just obvious and self-apparent depending on
the effect they have

Indeed.
Many thanks (and sorry for tardiness during my holiday).

It is noteworthy to find that we have not one but two students of the
"School of Proof by Assertion" in the NG.

Regards

S.P.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Simon Parker

Post by JNugent

Post by Simon Parker
Do you have a cite that supports that statement please?

That's unnecessary.  It's just obvious and self-apparent depending on
the effect they have

Indeed.
Many thanks (and sorry for tardiness during my holiday).

It is noteworthy to find that we have not one but two students of the
"School of Proof by Assertion" in the NG.

I think it's rather for you to argue properly that it is *not* obvious
and self-apparent, if that's what you believe.

[JNugent]

Post by Simon Parker

Post by JNugent

Post by Simon Parker
Do you have a cite that supports that statement please?

That's unnecessary.  It's just obvious and self-apparent depending on
the effect they have

Indeed.
Many thanks (and sorry for tardiness during my holiday).

It is noteworthy to find that we have not one but two students of the
"School of Proof by Assertion" in the NG.
Regards
S.P.

Which bit of "there is no legal definition of vermin" is causing the
difficulty?

Some people keep pet mice. Many/most of us regard, or would regard, them
as vermin if they were to be found in our homes. Others are keen
students of lepidoptera and have plenty of (deceased) specimens.

A moth is not automatically vermin. Neither is a mouse. It all depends
on the circumstances. This applies to any animal or creature capable of
infesting a home or other place of human resort.

[Simon Parker]

Post by Simon Parker

Post by JNugent
"Vermin" and its derivatives surely apply to creatures which are
unwantedly sharing living space with humans and causing some sort of
harm to humans as a result.

Thankfully, the question "Which mammals and other animals are
classified as 'vermin'?" was asked in the House of Lords back on the
8th October 2003 [^3] and, to the best of my knowledge, Lord Whitty's
<quote>
There is no definition of the term "vermin" in UK law.

Correct.  That's the domain of linguistics and usage, not the law,
except in specific legal contexts where any alternative or narrower
definition to be applied is specified.

As Lord Whitty is still sitting in the House of Lords, I am sure he will
be pleased to learn of your approval for what he had to say.

I have no doubt his life will be enriched immeasurably should he learn
of your agreement with and endorsement of his words.

Post by Simon Parker
In such a situation the Oxford Dictionary definition should be applied.

That is not in fact the legal position.  I'm glad to see that the
principle of applying dictionary definitions to determine what ordinary
English words mean is alive and well, as it should be and as I've said
before.  However, the Oxford Dictionary has no special place in
interpreting what is meant by any particular word.  It's a matter of
what the word means in ordinary English that matters, and any number of
dictionaries can and should be consulted for that purpose.

Please clarify what experience you have on presenting cases in court on
the matter of statutory interpretation and a rough guide of your success
rate in such cases.

If you do that, you will find that any number of that any number
specifically include insects in the term 'vermin'.  Getting back to the
original point, moths, being insects, fall within 'vermin' beyond any
shadow of doubt, and they have to be declared if any vermin have to be.

Oh look! A "Norman Bull". We have not had one for some time and were
long overdue one.

It is a shame you did not make yourself available as an expert witness
as you could have resolved the case prior to it reaching court.

Post by Simon Parker
The Oxford Dictionary defines "vermin" as "Animals of a noxious or
objectionable kind.  Originally applied to reptiles, stealthy, or
slinky animals, and various wild beasts; now, excluding in US and
Australia, almost entirely restricted to those animals or birds which
prey upon preserved game..."

Whereas Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary starts its definition with
'a collective name for obnoxious insects such as ...'.

Were I arguing the point in court I would likely rely upon the
definition provided by Oxford's "Dictionary of Environment and
Conservation" which provides the definition as: "The collective name for
various small animals (including mice, rats, and birds) and insects
(including cockroaches and flies) that are regarded as pests".

Post by Simon Parker
The Small Ground Vermin Traps Order 1958 and the various Spring Traps
Approval Orders, refer to "small ground vermin".  Neither the orders
nor the Pests Act 1954, under which they are made, define this term or
provide an exclusive list of species.  However, the following animals
are listed under various orders: moles, grey squirrels, rabbits, mink,
stoats, weasels, rabbits, rats, and mice.
Traps approved under the Spring Traps Approval Order 1995 do not apply
to small ground vermin listed in Schedules 5 and 6 to the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981.  This means that red squirrels, dormice, water
voles, shrews, hedgehogs, polecats and a number of other species are
excluded.
<end quote>

Any legal document including any Statute can define what it means or
includes by any term used in it.  But that only applies within the
context of that document, and not outside it.

As requested above, please clarify what experience you have in court on
the matter of statutory interpretation and a rough guide of your success
rate in such cases.

Post by Simon Parker

Post by JNugent
So yes, moths, like a great many other creatures, can be vermin, but
are not so automatically.

Do you have a cite that supports that statement please?

That's unnecessary.  It's just obvious and self-apparent depending on
the effect they have

It is unnecessary to produce cites when requested and rather a claim
that "It's just obvious and self-apparent" automatically defeats any
objections raised?

Well, that is certainly news to me.

Regards

S.P.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Simon Parker

Post by Simon Parker

Post by JNugent
"Vermin" and its derivatives surely apply to creatures which are
unwantedly sharing living space with humans and causing some sort of
harm to humans as a result.

Thankfully, the question "Which mammals and other animals are
classified as 'vermin'?" was asked in the House of Lords back on the
8th October 2003 [^3] and, to the best of my knowledge, Lord Whitty's
<quote>
There is no definition of the term "vermin" in UK law.

Correct.  That's the domain of linguistics and usage, not the law,
except in specific legal contexts where any alternative or narrower
definition to be applied is specified.

As Lord Whitty is still sitting in the House of Lords, I am sure he will
be pleased to learn of your approval for what he had to say.
I have no doubt his life will be enriched immeasurably should he learn
of your agreement with and endorsement of his words.

It interests me not whether he is pleased or has had his life enriched.
That is none of my concern, nor is it the least bit relevant.

Post by Simon Parker

Post by Simon Parker
In such a situation the Oxford Dictionary definition should be applied.

That is not in fact the legal position.  I'm glad to see that the
principle of applying dictionary definitions to determine what
ordinary English words mean is alive and well, as it should be and as
I've said before.  However, the Oxford Dictionary has no special place
in interpreting what is meant by any particular word.  It's a matter
of what the word means in ordinary English that matters, and any
number of dictionaries can and should be consulted for that purpose.

Please clarify what experience you have on presenting cases in court on
the matter of statutory interpretation and a rough guide of your success
rate in such cases.

The legal position is as I said. If you actually disagree with it, it's
for you to say why.

Post by Simon Parker

If you do that, you will find that any number of that any number
specifically include insects in the term 'vermin'.  Getting back to
the original point, moths, being insects, fall within 'vermin' beyond
any shadow of doubt, and they have to be declared if any vermin have
to be.

Oh look!  A "Norman Bull".  We have not had one for some time and were
long overdue one.

The reasoning is all there above.

Post by Simon Parker
It is a shame you did not make yourself available as an expert witness
as you could have resolved the case prior to it reaching court.

I would have been available had I been asked.

Post by Simon Parker

Post by Simon Parker
The Oxford Dictionary defines "vermin" as "Animals of a noxious or
objectionable kind.  Originally applied to reptiles, stealthy, or
slinky animals, and various wild beasts; now, excluding in US and
Australia, almost entirely restricted to those animals or birds which
prey upon preserved game..."

Whereas Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary starts its definition
with 'a collective name for obnoxious insects such as ...'.

Were I arguing the point in court I would likely rely upon the
definition provided by Oxford's "Dictionary of Environment and
Conservation" which provides the definition as: "The collective name for
various small animals (including mice, rats, and birds) and insects
(including cockroaches and flies) that are regarded as pests".

It's good to see that you too now subscribe to the principle I've long
espoused that dictionaries should be used to determine the meaning of
words that are in question. And that the Oxford Dictionary is not the
only one or even the main one that should be used. As I said, it holds
no special place in the law.

No, getting back to the point, you haven't been at all clear. Are you
claiming that moths are not insects, or that the ones under
consideration are not pests? If neither, you're agreeing with me in
every respect.

Post by Simon Parker

Post by Simon Parker
The Small Ground Vermin Traps Order 1958 and the various Spring Traps
Approval Orders, refer to "small ground vermin".  Neither the orders
nor the Pests Act 1954, under which they are made, define this term
or provide an exclusive list of species.  However, the following
animals are listed under various orders: moles, grey squirrels,
rabbits, mink, stoats, weasels, rabbits, rats, and mice.
Traps approved under the Spring Traps Approval Order 1995 do not
apply to small ground vermin listed in Schedules 5 and 6 to the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.  This means that red squirrels,
dormice, water voles, shrews, hedgehogs, polecats and a number of
other species are excluded.
<end quote>

Any legal document including any Statute can define what it means or
includes by any term used in it.  But that only applies within the
context of that document, and not outside it.

As requested above, please clarify what experience you have in court on
the matter of statutory interpretation and a rough guide of your success
rate in such cases.

If you actually disagree with what I said, do say why rather than just
make veiled ad hom remarks..

Post by Simon Parker

Post by Simon Parker

Post by JNugent
So yes, moths, like a great many other creatures, can be vermin, but
are not so automatically.

Do you have a cite that supports that statement please?

That's unnecessary.  It's just obvious and self-apparent depending on
the effect they have

It is unnecessary to produce cites when requested and rather a claim
that "It's just obvious and self-apparent" automatically defeats any
objections raised?
Well, that is certainly news to me.

That depends whether it is just obvious and self-apparent. Statements
that are have to be taken as baseline knowledge or discussion is
effectively impossible. Would you ask for cites that the sun will rise
tomorrow?

I suspect you would.