Moral/legal obligations when selling your house

GDB2222

ticktack wrote: »

That's not a nice letter to find when you're moving in. Tell them about any niggles and quirks before exchange, otherwise it looks like you've held back, even though they may be minor flaws. If they're not deal breakers, no need to wait until the deal is done.

You are saintly!

I bought a second-hand tumble dryer that works perfectly well provided you give the door a good slam when you close it. You could argue that I was sold a pup, but you soon get used to it, and it works perfectly well.

ticktack_2

GDB2222 wrote: »

You are saintly!

First time I've ever been called that particular name.

I do hate moving in and finding a lot of unpleasant surprises. I never do it when selling, and I wish people wouldn't do it to me when I'm buying. The reason people don't mention these drawbacks before exchange is because they're afraid the buyer will use it to negotiate the price down. Which they well might.

Ste_C

GDB2222 wrote: »

A child could be hurt by a fence panel falling off, so I'd bang a couple of nails in sooner rather than later.

Won't somebody please think of the children?!!?!

GDB2222

Better_Days wrote: »

Yes, looked at a house with an 88 foot garden with dilapidated fences both sides and the vendor didn't even know who owned what!

This property also had electrical wires everywhere which the vendor had wired up to his solar panels to save on electricity. The downstairs loo flushes via a 'grey water' set up (rainwater from the roof) again installed by the vendor with a pump and which he is intending to take with him (presumably leaving holes in the walls and the loo's water tank). There was newspaper stuck to the ceiling in the hall. The vendor had decided she didn't like the artex and was intending to cover it up with newspaper then wall paper, then paint, but hadn't finished the job:eek:

I take it that you are not going to buy that house?

Better_Days

GDB2222 wrote: »

I take it that you are not going to buy that house?

It's in a wonderful spot, got lots of potential, but realistically we can't afford the £25-£30k needed to put it right on top of current AP. Still it was worth viewing for the newspaper on the ceiling. Plus I wont forget the Skoda car radio set into the wall in the hall attached to speakers wired all around the house.

phoebe1989seb

Better_Days wrote: »

It's in a wonderful spot, got lots of potential, but realistically we can't afford the £25-£30k needed to put it right on top of current AP. Still it was worth viewing for the wallpaper on the ceiling. Plus I wont forget the Skoda car radio set into the wall in the hall attached to speakers wired all around the house.

Gosh, sounds like it was done by the same guy we bought our current house from......we have speakers in the bathroom with cables hanging down above the bath/shower that run upstairs to a radio hidden somewhere in an attic bedroom....have yet to find where, lol!

The same bathroom has a high level loo with a piece of string hanging down through the ceiling from tne cistern which is again in that attic bedroom above :eek:

Only this week we discovered water coming down into the bathroom onto a wall light (luckily a sealed unit) and when we investigated we found an overflow pipe from said cistern directly above the light on the inside of the bathroom wall

Davesnave

I think people here are perhaps applying the standards they have in modern & smaller houses to older or larger properties where the fit isn't so good.

Something 100+ years old with 1/2 acre of garden and a few outbuildings is likely to have developed a few quirks, which are neither particularly dangerous, nor deserving of immediate attention, but which fall short of full serviceability. This is expected, because few people have the time/energy/money to keep these properties like the National Trust would.

Some people are risk-averse, in which case they are better off staying with modern easily-managed houses. The olde worlde thatched cottage, decked with with wisteria, probably isn't for them.

Somerset70

I think the key is to emphasise the positives of your property. I did this when selling to the people that eventually bought our cottage. I tried to give all the reasons we'd loved living there but I also answered direct questions with a positive spin. So when they asked e.g. about the neighbours I said who they all were ("next door is a family with three kids; on the other side they're retired and we don't see them much" etc.), but I didn't mention that we'd had spats with them over the years about planning and messy gardens. They didn't materially affect what the buyers were getting or might plan to do with the house in future so I don't think that was dishonest.
As for the problems associated with an older house (mine was 200+ years), they had two surveys done and that showed them anything serious (there wasn't anything) and minor (a few bits). I left them a letter about where the stopcock is, rubbish collections, etc. but I didn't fix the shower rail that was loose or redecorate the room with a mouldy patch in the corner. The bathroom I'm pretty sure they planned to redo anyway and the mouldy bit I treated it but didn't have time in the end to repaint. I did leave them everything nice and clean and tidy, all sockets working, clean cooker, loads of nice shelving, etc. I think they'll be happy and won't feel misled.
The house I've moved into is very up together but she did leave a note about a broken gutter and an 'unsafe' boiler! Both are actually quite minor things as it turns out and everything else was brilliant so we didn't mind. What I would have liked is more info about the vagaries of the heating/hot water as we still can't fathom how to get a really hot bath!

phoebe1989seb

Davesnave wrote: »

I think people here are perhaps applying the standards they have in modern & smaller houses to older or larger properties where the fit isn't so good.

Something 100+ years old with 1/2 acre of garden and a few outbuildings is likely to have developed a few quirks, which are neither particularly dangerous, nor deserving of immediate attention, but which fall short of full serviceability. This is expected, because few people have the time/energy/money to keep these properties like the National Trust would.

Some people are risk-averse, in which case they are better off staying with modern easily-managed houses. The olde worlde thatched cottage, decked with with wisteria, probably isn't for them.

Totally agree......we always buy old properties - our last was a Tudor house that had been dismantled in the 1930s, moved over 50 miles, then rebuilt with Arts & Crafts additions and our current is at least 300 years old, thatched and bought as a half-finished project. We have also reconverted a Victorian villa from four flats back to a large family home. All of these have thrown up surprises - good and bad - along the way. We always do a fair amount of the work ourselves and love a project.

We hate new houses or those that have been renovated to within an inch of their life and can't understand why some people get so hung-up about wanting everything in pristine, show-home condition when they buy a property. Surely putting your own *stamp* on a property is half the fun? Even when we have restored a house to its former glory, it has been done in a such a way as to retain its character rather than turn it into a new *box* of a house Whilst alot of the 'quirks' discovered in this and previous houses are a PITA, we love not knowing what we'll discover when we take one on......it's all part of their charm and we wouldn't have it any other way