We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Asbestos - is this a new requirement when selling?
Comments
-
Madjock wrote:Rachman, you're missing the point, it doesn't matter what's gone before, it's a requirement now for most mortgage lenders in certain properties or if it appears in the property information. The buyer's solicitor in this case is protecting his clients' interests, but the client has the option of instructing their solicitor not to have the report done. It sounds to me like the buyer is very well aware of caveat emptor.
From what's above, this is a because it's a certain property not because it appears - I'd tell the buyer to find another lender who's not quite so difficult - or invite them to pay for it if their lender wants it.
I know I have not had a problem with any sort of request like this on any property I have either bought or sold - unless it's brand new, in which case it's yet more nonsense - if the lender wants it, add it to his client's costs, not to the sellers'......0 -
Rachman wrote:From what's above, this is a because it's a certain property not because it appears - I'd tell the buyer to find another lender who's not quite so difficult - or invite them to pay for it if their lender wants it.
Think this was the sort of message I was going to pass on but think it may be too late for that buyer anyway. I've no plans to sell mine just yet but it's good to be aware of what could be round the corner so thanks everyone.0 -
Rachman, you would never get this requirement in a new build because asbestos isn't used anymore. One of the earlier posters mentioned things like radon gas certificates. Well, radon gas comes up on environmental searches or sometimes on valuation reports, and usually recommends further reports, which are mostly a caveat to the buyer but not a requirement for the mortgage. The attitude of mortgage lenders to the presence of asbestos is different. Perhaps if a link is ever proven with the likes of radon gas to cause illnesses such as asbestosis then mortgage lenders will insist on radon gas certificates as well.
I'm sure that 40-50 years ago people would have been incredulous at the idea that asbestos could cause the problems it has now been proven to.
If the buyer has pulled out rather than pay for the asbestos report themselves, that's up to them. So many people bluff over issues like this that people are shocked when people do actually walk away.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards