Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • ktcoil
    • By ktcoil 10th Apr 17, 10:00 AM
    • 409Posts
    • 33Thanks
    ktcoil
    Envirnmental search come back not satisfactory?
    • #1
    • 10th Apr 17, 10:00 AM
    Envirnmental search come back not satisfactory? 10th Apr 17 at 10:00 AM
    Hi Guys


    The Solicitor has come back with the Drainage, Mining and Enviornmental search, we currently wait for Local search.


    Each one has come back with this is satisfactory for my purposes apart from the below which we are unsure of? also still await local search.


    This is the email response,




    Environmental Search – this is not satisfactory for my purposes. In this regard whilst I have raised enquiries of the seller’s solicitors to ascertain if they are able to fulfil any of the criteria set by the environmental specialists in order that a ‘Passed Certificate’ may be issued. I must point out that in the event that suitable documentation cannot be provided, that indemnity insurance will be required. Insurance of this kind is usually limited to the cover of loss of value of your property, in the event of matters arising due to contamination of the known source or costs associated with a ‘clean up’ that may be required. The policy is not assignable to a future purchaser and will not cover for matters associated with health or otherwise.
Page 1
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 10th Apr 17, 10:18 AM
    • 1,986 Posts
    • 2,498 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    • #2
    • 10th Apr 17, 10:18 AM
    • #2
    • 10th Apr 17, 10:18 AM
    Is this a new property or one that has been built in the last 20 years or so?
    • davidmcn
    • By davidmcn 10th Apr 17, 10:22 AM
    • 4,926 Posts
    • 4,511 Thanks
    davidmcn
    • #3
    • 10th Apr 17, 10:22 AM
    • #3
    • 10th Apr 17, 10:22 AM
    You haven't told us what the environmental search says i.e. why it has failed.

    What your solicitor is saying is that you can insure against costs resulting from the site being contaminated. Which in theory covers you, but you might want to know more about what the background is before going ahead e.g. whether it's something which might put off purchasers/lenders in the future.
    Last edited by davidmcn; 10-04-2017 at 11:43 AM.
    • G_M
    • By G_M 10th Apr 17, 11:12 AM
    • 38,824 Posts
    • 44,030 Thanks
    G_M
    • #4
    • 10th Apr 17, 11:12 AM
    • #4
    • 10th Apr 17, 11:12 AM
    So there are 2 issues

    1) there might be a future expense (eg clean-up or loss of property value). You can insure against this

    2) there might be health risk. You cannot insure against this, but as you don't say why the search failed, we cannot comment. If the property was built, for example, on the site of an old nuclear power station, you might want to think twice......
    • AlexMac
    • By AlexMac 10th Apr 17, 11:42 AM
    • 1,806 Posts
    • 1,567 Thanks
    AlexMac
    • #5
    • 10th Apr 17, 11:42 AM
    • #5
    • 10th Apr 17, 11:42 AM
    It's probably solicitors' and Environmental Survey Companies' makework, but as others say, you need to know what nit-picking potenetial fault was actually identified on your Environmental Search (or previously, when your seller had an SE done when they bought).

    For example, our kids ES was a failure because it found a long gone "historic tank" on an old map, 50 metres from the end of their garden. Turned out it was nothing; a central heating fuel tank for a long demolished Council building. The remedy was either for the Council to issue some kind of clearance certification, at a cost of a few quid, taking a couple of months due to pressure of work; or a fifty quid "Indemnity" to satisfy their lender and protect against the infinitesimal risk (hence my snide remark above!).

    So what is it? Nuclear waste dump or and old baked bean factory?
    • ktcoil
    • By ktcoil 10th Apr 17, 11:43 AM
    • 409 Posts
    • 33 Thanks
    ktcoil
    • #6
    • 10th Apr 17, 11:43 AM
    • #6
    • 10th Apr 17, 11:43 AM
    sorry this is what was on the attachement,


    Contaminated land- In need of further assessment,


    Groundsure considers there is a High


    Potential Risk* that the site may be










    identified as Contaminated Land**. You


    may wish to either clarify the risk with


    further enquiries or insure the risk.


    Please see the Overview and Guidance


    Section for further details.




    • davidmcn
    • By davidmcn 10th Apr 17, 12:00 PM
    • 4,926 Posts
    • 4,511 Thanks
    davidmcn
    • #7
    • 10th Apr 17, 12:00 PM
    • #7
    • 10th Apr 17, 12:00 PM
    Please see the Overview and Guidance Section for further details.
    Originally posted by ktcoil
    Do you not have the further details?
    • ktcoil
    • By ktcoil 10th Apr 17, 2:15 PM
    • 409 Posts
    • 33 Thanks
    ktcoil
    • #8
    • 10th Apr 17, 2:15 PM
    • #8
    • 10th Apr 17, 2:15 PM
    Sorry,
    groundsure considers there is high potential risk* the the site may be identified as contaminated land** you may wish to either clarify the risk with further enquiries or insure the risk.






    The following potentially contaminative historical land uses of particular concern were identified by this report:


    1. Cotton mills on site between circa 1851 and 1891,


    2. Unspecified mills on site between circa 1908 and 1965.


    In view of the type and location of land use disclosed by this environmental report Groundsure was initially unable to certify this


    property. An environmental consultant has gathered and reviewed additional information on the site and presented this for further


    assessment. Furthermore our Risk Assessment Team has personally reviewed the site information in detail and concluded that


    additional enquiries may help clarify this risk. Alternatively, you may wish to consider insurance as an option. Groundsure cannot


    confirm that Contaminated Land issues will not impact the security of the property in normal lending scenarios.




    • G_M
    • By G_M 10th Apr 17, 2:20 PM
    • 38,824 Posts
    • 44,030 Thanks
    G_M
    • #9
    • 10th Apr 17, 2:20 PM
    • #9
    • 10th Apr 17, 2:20 PM
    An environmental consultant has gathered and reviewed additional information on the site and presented this for further


    assessment.
    What does the 'additional information' say?

    How concerned are you about buried waste from a mill?
    • Slinky
    • By Slinky 10th Apr 17, 2:26 PM
    • 4,150 Posts
    • 16,718 Thanks
    Slinky
    As soon as I saw cotton mills, my mind connected it with arsenic.

    Found this on a search

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12231419
    • ktcoil
    • By ktcoil 10th Apr 17, 2:39 PM
    • 409 Posts
    • 33 Thanks
    ktcoil
    thanks, I wasn't too fussed but then if its a case of struggling to maybe sell in future as well as danger to our health.
    • davidmcn
    • By davidmcn 10th Apr 17, 2:44 PM
    • 4,926 Posts
    • 4,511 Thanks
    davidmcn
    How long ago was the housing built? If recent enough then the planners are likely to have thought of contamination and required further surveys/clean-up (and should have the papers to prove it).
    • ktcoil
    • By ktcoil 10th Apr 17, 3:28 PM
    • 409 Posts
    • 33 Thanks
    ktcoil
    what I can remember as its at home but about 1987 it was built
    • ktcoil
    • By ktcoil 19th Apr 17, 8:43 AM
    • 409 Posts
    • 33 Thanks
    ktcoil
    about 1987 it was built
    • ERICS MUM
    • By ERICS MUM 19th Apr 17, 9:20 AM
    • 3,300 Posts
    • 6,152 Thanks
    ERICS MUM
    I can't work out the specific risks from the information you've given us. I don't know if this is the standard level of detail for such a report but it wouldn't satisfy me - I would expect far more detail.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 19th Apr 17, 10:07 AM
    • 13,471 Posts
    • 11,853 Thanks
    AdrianC
    I can't work out the specific risks from the information you've given us. I don't know if this is the standard level of detail for such a report but it wouldn't satisfy me - I would expect far more detail.
    Originally posted by ERICS MUM
    That's the whole point, though - there may not BE further detail.

    The property is on the site of old cotton mills - with an arsenic risk - and other "unspecified mills" - which may carry other risks. There is, it seems, no record of other detail, nor of the ground having had any kind of environmental clean-up or confirmation of that clean-up not being needed.

    There's an unanswered question over the land. THAT's what the survey is doing - pointing that out.
    The solicitor is saying he's not happy with that unanswered question, and pointing out the ways forward.
    There are two potential corollaries - value loss, and health.
    Potential value loss can be insured against.
    Potential health implications cannot.
    Everybody is simply doing the job they're being paid for.

    So - given that that's the detail available, what does the OP - as the 2017 putative buyer - want to do?
    Just go for it anyway? Insurance? Walk? They are the only three choices available - and the solicitor is strongly advising against the first. Since the solicitor is also acting for the lender, if there is one, it may only be two choices in practice.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

22Posts Today

3,789Users online

Martin's Twitter