House flood after exchange of contracts but before completion

silvercar

Is there a mortgage involved? Is the lender still prepared to lend on it?

UKSBD

TastyTeeth wrote: »

Rotten luck and a very difficult position.

Surely the vendor has some responsibility here in sorting the house out. When its handed over for completion, the house must be in clean and tidy condition surely? Therefore, wouldn't completion be delayed to allow the vendor to put the damage right? If they couldn't do this, then would they not be breaching a part of the contract?

Interesting point.
OP Ask your solicitor what the contract says about condition at completion.

sabretoothtigger

Haggle for a couple grand towards clearing up 'their' mess
Cheeky but worth a try

thegirlintheattic

Flood risk is often stated in years - as in it has a "1 in 50 year flood risk". What that really means is that the likelihood of the water reaching a height where it will flood the home is 1 in 50 in any given year or 2% a year - not that it will only flood once every 50 years, indeed you can have 2 50 year floods one after the other. These low reoccurence floods are actually much more devastating because they are so much larger and infrequent.

Did your daughter not research the flood risk or get someone to do it for her? The risk of flooding is still the same, so really if she was happy with it a few weeks ago, nothing about the RISK has changed.

The vendor should get it back into the same condition as it was before the flooding before completing, and your DD maybe needs to do some research into how to flood proof the home for the future.

Thrugelmir

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

The vendor should get it back into the same condition as it was before the flooding before completing,

That's why buildings insurance is required on exchange. A flood is no different to a fire. The buyer is contractually liable to complete on the purchase.

Mickygg

On exchange you have to proceed to complete or the seller will sue and will end up by far worse off.Buying a property that flooded in 2007 is a risk. The risk backfired.
Check the insurance and see if you can claim.

Roger_queen

Hi, yes they did investigate the risk of flooding before they exchanged. With the info from vendor that the reason it flooded in 2007 was that the culvert was blocked and that he has got written confirmation from Council that they will regularly clear drains etc ( clearly not the case as by daughters boyfriend cleared out of brook a bag of peat, tyres, wheels, cans, bottles even an old duvet and has taken photos of this!)
The above info, coupled with the fact that the environment agency says its low flood risk, and the insurance company were happy to insure knowing the history, and the mortgage company knew of history, this is the reason they decided to proceed.

We realise it's no-ones fault but it's a nightmare situation, just need info on who's insurance will be liable. In contract it says the condition of the property must be the same as at exchange, clearly it is not the same so maybe there's a chance he vendor must correct? Thanks for all your comments.
I'll keep you updated.

zzzLazyDaisy

Your son needs to get onto the council.

The house is not a 'flood risk' in the normal sense of the term.

If the flooding was caused by a blocked culvert, that is the responsibility of the council that is supposed to maintain it (although he may get passed from pillar to post).

I have personal knowledge of this because I have a culvert that is at the back of my house. First five years no problem. Then the council has workmen in to cut back the bushes and instead of taking the debris away they threw it in the hedgrow. Next downpour my garden and those of several neighbours were under several feet of water. Fortunately for me, my house is on a hill above the garden, so didn't get flooded. The next door neighbour's garage was flooded though and a lot of things that were stored in there ended up under three feet of water. After a fight the council compensated her. They also cleaned out the culvert and we had no problem for two years...

until this year....

As far as the present damage goes - the seller has an obligation to transfer the property to your sin in the same condition as it was at exchange. The solicitor should be dealing with this on your son's behalf.

andy.m_2

I suspect that your head will be spinning with all the conflicting advice on this thread, it is the buyer's issue, seller's issue, hey why not offer to go 50/50.

Speaking from experience, you exchanged, it is your lookout.
We had water damage between echange and completion, albeit water from above and a ceiling that split and needed repair.
We asked (through our Conveyencer) for a contribution and got respectfully told to "do one".
There is an obligation to leave the place as it was prior to exchange however that doesn't hold true because people take light fittings, blinds, curtains, carpets etc and if you remove fixtures and fittings your only requirement is to leave them in a safe condition.

We were fortunate that our vendor left a few too many items behind that we specifically instructed them to remove so we charged them for skips etc and it all worked out ok (for us) and we got our contribution we wanted, albeit through the back door.

The upshot is that your offspring have paid for a solicitor, they need to ring them now and get legal advice, they have paid for it and it will be a very short and simple phone call.
Tell them to sit down though while they make it.


Please do come back and let us know the outcome as this could help a lot of people in the future.


p.s. Where is Richard Webster when you really want his expert opinion?

zzzLazyDaisy

andy.m wrote: »

p.s. Where is Richard Webster when you really want his expert opinion?

Riiiiikkkkyyyyyyy !!!!

(sorry, couldn't resist.... )