buyer wont accept offered indemity on conservatory

clarabelle41

We bought this house in 1998. There was a conservatory in situ which we replaced with a slightly larger one in 2000, it extends across the rear of the house. The manhole was moved so that it wasn't covered up.

Our buyer had a mortgage valuation done, & then just before xmas wanted a full structural survey done (not homebuyers). They have now said that this report says the conservatory sits on top of the sewer and therefore could/will damage the sewer & the water company could insist its removed/dig up the floor because of potential damage. We asked our solicitor to offer an insurance indemity but the buyer has rejected this, saying 'cross beams' are required to spread the weight.

Any ideas on how to proceed? It is a semi-detached house and our neighbour also has a conservatory across the rear of their house, as do other neighbours. When we had the conservatory built, by a local conservatory company, no mention was made of needing planning permission or building regs so neither was applied for.

pimento

What are they asking for? You can't move the sewer.

clarabelle41

That's exactly what I said to our EA this morning! I suspect that they are going to want a late price reduction of a few thousand. But the price they offered, & we accepted, was 10K less than the asking price, and less than a previous offer which fell through. I really would find it hard to reduce further. They have already made it clear they want to extend/alter the house etc.

I don't even know if it's possible to have 'crossbeams' etc inserted under the conservatory.

They have (due to the survey) also pointed out as areas of concern that the 12 yr old boiler will need replacing (but don't they all at some point) and that the upstairs doors don't close properly/have loose hinges & that the loft cold water tank isn't covered and has sediment in so needs draining down & cleaning.

botchjob

They don't have a strong case for arguing a price reduction but it depends how much you need the sale to go through. The conservatory has stood there for 12 years (and one before that) with no ill effects so it sounds ridiculous to expect you to cover the cost of installing 'cross beams' just because their surveyor has given an opinion.

Personally I'd just point that out (in more business like language) and not move an inch. If it really proves to be a deal breaker, and you still want the sale to go through, the compromise would be to offer to split the cost of the beams 50/50, but leave it to them to do the work once they've moved in. You absolutely don't want to be responsible for any work yourself, even inbetween exchange and completion.

And the other things on the survey don't warrant any reduction.

Time to show them some mettle.

spacey2012

i take it you still have the house on the market ?

ess0two

Call their bluff,if they aint happy the deals off.

Furts

clarabelle41 wrote: »

That's exactly what I said to our EA this morning! I suspect that they are going to want a late price reduction of a few thousand. But the price they offered, & we accepted, was 10K less than the asking price, and less than a previous offer which fell through. I really would find it hard to reduce further. They have already made it clear they want to extend/alter the house etc.

I don't even know if it's possible to have 'crossbeams' etc inserted under the conservatory.

They have (due to the survey) also pointed out as areas of concern that the 12 yr old boiler will need replacing (but don't they all at some point) and that the upstairs doors don't close properly/have loose hinges & that the loft cold water tank isn't covered and has sediment in so needs draining down & cleaning.

Hi clarabelle41
The doors and sediment are trivial.

Nobody knows if the builders took precautions with the drain. The drain is, probably, private and nothing to do with the water board. The conservatory is a light weight, temporary structure that at the time would have been of little interest to Building Control. It would put negligible loads on the drain and the notion of "cross beams" at this stage is premature and somewhat over the top. (Trial holes would need to be dug to establish the facts)

Let me know if this helps

tom9980

clarabelle41 wrote: »

They have already made it clear they want to extend/alter the house etc.

This caught my eye seems they may demolish it anyway so the argument is moot if they want to extend in the place of the conservatory. If your conservatory was put up and conformed to the building regs of the time they really are nitpicking with the other stuff too so personally i would call them on it and at most knock £2k off if push came to shove.

This may help you decide who is responsible for the drain/sewer since it changed in 2011.

http://www.clearawaydrainage.co.uk/responsible.html

keith969

When you say your conservatory is built over a sewer, is it drainage just from your own property or is it flowing in from somewhere outside and under your property before going to the street sewer?

In the first case then it is your sewer and not the responsibility of the water company. In my previous house we had an extension built over a manhole cover, to reach it now one would have to take up the kitchen floorboards! But as it was just for waste water from the soil pipe and kitchen/bathroom it was our sewer and so there was no issue.

In the latter case if it is definitely owned by the water company then yes, they could dig it up if there were problems - but only if there WERE problems, which you or your neighbours would probably be aware of. Getting a video survey of the sewer by a specialist drainage company would be a way of resolving the issue - surveyors aren't experts on drains and they don't have X ray eyes, so their 'could/will damage' statement is merely an opinion.

londonlydia

May I add I think your solicitor's response was right anyway. Indemnity insurance is there in case whatever body comes along and demands something be changed, not to fix the fault. So indemnity insurance deals with that worry. The fact that it has been there for 12 years with no ill effects, then structually I doubt it needs changing. Yes building regs etc tell us what must be done at that present time, but we cant go fixing everything in houses to meet the current standards unless it really is a safety issue. An example of this is that my friend has been told that if she rewires her house, that regs now say that plugs must be half way at your wall. But everyone in the country musnt automatically go about their house raising then by a m!

Slinky

If they are planning on extending over the area themselves and it's a public sewer, they'd need to get a buildover agreement from the water company anyway!

Sounds to me like they are trying it on.