102 year old house

chirp

Is it wise to buy a house which was built in 1910 which makes it a 102 year old house? Would it result in constant money being spent on maintenance? Would appreciate some views on this please.

ceh209

Unless I've hibernated for 10 years, 1910 makes it a 102 year old house.

I'd rather a 102 year old house than a 2 year old house, the way some of them are built these days...

Get a survey and you'll know the answers. As long as the electrics, plumbing and boiler have been updated since it was built, you should be fine :rotfl:

princeofpounds

As long as the original style of construction was sound, you shouldn't have any unusual problems.

If the current owners have underinvested then you might have to replace fixtures and fittings at some point, but frankly that is a problem for any house over 10 years old, not specific to 100-year old ones.

The design might have quirks simply because building regs as we know them now didn't really exist back then.

Get a surveyor to check for the normal problems.

If you think about it, any house that stands for 100 years can't have been too badly-built in the first place. Houses of that age often have early versions of modern construction techniques such as cavity walls and proper damp courses, but can more solidly-built that mass market newbuilds.

ognum

All houses require maintenance, I don't think there is any evidence that older houses require more, however they may not be as efficient as a new house. Lots of heat leakage through solid walls and single glazed windows.

I think it's a question of what you like and a good survey.

Louise.H

I've been hibernating too apparently.

Our house was built in 1912, celebrating its centenary this year :beer:. In our case the house is far better build than modern ones and certainly some of the terrible builds from the 70's! Find out when the boiler was done, when it was insulated etc. As with any house look for cracks in the walls, dodgy electrics, marks on ceilings. Oh and I'm assuming it isn't listed because that brings its on set of problems when it comes to building/updating.

Rupert_Bear

chirp wrote: »

Is it wise to buy a house which was built in 1910 which makes it a 112 year old house? Would it result in constant money being spent on maintenance? Would appreciate some views on this please.

Our house is 116 years old and still standing. It was built to last and very few maintenance issues.

arbrighton

And we're attempting to purchase a house built in 1844. Non-standard construction, certainly, but still standing (and the surveyor is out there today, he was actually looking forward to going as it's more interesting that your standard boxy estate new build). Very thick walls and very warm.
A bit ironic that the 10 year old conservatory on this house is where the problems lie don't you think?

DRP

chirp wrote: »

Is it wise to buy a house which was built in 1910 which makes it a 102 year old house? Would it result in constant money being spent on maintenance? Would appreciate some views on this please.

if your house has been standing for 100+ years then i doubt it'll collapse anytime soon!

seriously though... check when the roof was last maintained/rebuilt as it is likely this may be an issue if it hasn't been done in the last 30 years or so. Also obvious things like plastering, electrics and central heating will be big costs if they haven't been kept 'current'.

(my house was built in 1886)

phill99

My house was built in 1902. I've been in it 22 years. The previous owners installed DG. In terms of maintenance I've had to replace the boiler. Inter s of improvements I've decorated, had a new kitchen and bathroom and replaced the gutters etc.

So in terms of pure maintenance, I've spent very little, but a fair bit on improvements. Most of the money you spend will be on improvements, not maintenance. As others have suggested a 100 yr old house has stood the test of time, whereas new houses haven't.

somethingcorporate

Our house was built in the 1890s, victorian terrace. The windows were the main thing, single-glazed sash with paper-thin glass lets out lots of heat. Everything else was pretty much due to the previous owners under-investing and bodging every job they did.

One thing to watch for is damp, there was no DPC in these properties originally and there is some spots of damp evident in some of the rooms - these could be fixed but it is too disruptive so we're just going to live with it - it's nothing serious. It's to be expected in a lot of old properties.

Johnhowell

somethingcorporate wrote: »

One thing to watch for is damp, there was no DPC in these properties originally and there is some spots of damp evident in some of the rooms - these could be fixed but it is too disruptive so we're just going to live with it - it's nothing serious. It's to be expected in a lot of old properties.

Elderly neighbour's cottage from 1914 has slate tiles as the damp barrier. So damp prevention was around then. They thought they had a damp issue so they called in a damp-proof company. The company surveyor (read salesman) recommended spraying the outside of the brickwork with some sort of chemical at the cost of thousands. Fortunately, their grandson arrived and asked the "surveyor" to leave. The source of the damp was they did not open their bedroom window! and there was no positive extraction from the shower room. They now open the windows and no more damp.

OP, as suggested, select for the full structural survey.

Good luck,
John

P.S. as the process of purchase goes through ask your solicitor about the original deeds - and do not get fobbed off by the get-out "don't need them as everything is electronic." That may be so for doing the transfer of ownership, but 100 year deeds will be so much nicer and contain more information that Land Registry hold.