A Vernon couple have been ordered to pay $5,000 to the new owner of their home after he noticed a burning smell on the day of possession.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to a May 27 BC Civil Resolution Tribunal decision, new homeowner Charles Young \u201cimmediately\u201d noticed the smell, along with his realtor, on the day he took possession of Wayne and Susanne Hoover\u2019s home. A contractor found that the furnace was broken and replaced it for $6,400.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Young asked the Hoovers to cover the cost, but they refused. He then took them to the online small claims court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cI have found that the Hoovers\u2019 representation of the furnace was untrue,\u201d The Tribunal ruled. \u201cI am also satisfied that the Hoovers failed to take reasonable care in making the misrepresentation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The decision said of the day possession, Young and his realtor noticed the smell \u201cpermeated the house\u201d and appeared to be coming from the basement and mechanical room.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Young hired a contractor to investigate, who found that the furnace fan had seized and the motor wasn\u2019t working properly, which was the source of the smell.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The contractor said the motor had been discontinued, and no aftermarket replacements were available. The only option was to find a used one or replace the entire furnace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Through his realtor, Young told the couple the furnace was broken, and he wanted compensation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, the Hoovers\u2019 realtor wrote back, saying the couple weren\u2019t responsible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cMr. Young offered to let the Hoovers inspect the furnace themselves,\u201d the decision said. \u201cThe Hoovers did not take the opportunity to do so.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In his submission to the Tribunal, Young got a second opinion from another contractor who diagnosed exactly the same issue. The furnace was then replaced for $6,453.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In their defence, the Hoovers argued they\u2019d done a walkthrough of the house on the morning of the possession date without noticing any issues. They also said there was a home inspection, but the report wasn\u2019t submitted to the Tribunal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There are no details about whether Young got a home inspection, and if so, what it said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Hoovers argued that Young had only complained about the furnace one year later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe emails show this was untrue,\u201d the Tribunal ruled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Hoovers then said they didn\u2019t hear about the furnace for over a month after the sale was completed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWhile less inaccurate, this statement is also untrue,\u201d the Tribunal said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Tribunal pointed out that the Hoovers\u2019 realtor had told them about the furnace issue days after the sale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cI therefore put little weight on the Hoovers\u2019 submission that the furnace was working as of the possession date, or that they took steps to ensure that was the case,\u201d the Tribunal said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Tribunal said that the real estate contract for the property\u2019s sale stated the furnace would be in working order on the possession date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cI find the Hoovers made a negligent misrepresentation,\u201d the Tribunal ruled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ultimately, the Tribunal ordered the couple to pay Young $5,000, the maximum amount of compensation available at the Tribunal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
They claimed it was fine, but the new owner sued.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":292,"featured_media":8528,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"guid":"","source":"","byline":"","published":"","updated":"","_infotelid":"","_prepressid":"","_multisite_post_sync":"","_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1680,541,543],"tags":[],"region":[322,323,324,325],"class_list":["post-8527","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-featured","category-local","category-topnews","region-kamloops","region-kelowna","region-penticton","region-vernon"],"blocksy_meta":[],"parsely":{"version":"1.1.0","canonical_url":"http:\/\/infonews.ca\/inhome\/news\/8527\/vernon-couple-who-sold-house-with-broken-furnace-on-the-hook-5000\/","smart_links":{"inbound":0,"outbound":0},"traffic_boost_suggestions_count":0,"meta":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@type":"NewsArticle","headline":"Vernon couple who sold house with broken furnace on the hook $5,000","url":"http:\/\/infonews.ca\/inhome\/news\/8527\/vernon-couple-who-sold-house-with-broken-furnace-on-the-hook-5000\/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/infonews.ca\/inhome\/news\/8527\/vernon-couple-who-sold-house-with-broken-furnace-on-the-hook-5000\/"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/infonews.ca\/inhome\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/inhome-pexels-thirdman-8470803.jpg?w=150&h=150&crop=1","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https:\/\/infonews.ca\/inhome\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/inhome-pexels-thirdman-8470803.jpg"},"articleSection":"Featured","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Ben Bulmer"}],"creator":["Ben Bulmer"],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"iNhome","logo":""},"keywords":[],"dateCreated":"2026-06-11T21:00:00Z","datePublished":"2026-06-11T21:00:00Z","dateModified":"2026-06-11T21:00:11Z"},"rendered":"