Dry rot - what would you do?

[Deleted User]

I'm a FTB in the process of buying a leasehold flat in London. I had a timber and damp survey done on the place (at he request of the surveyor who did the homebuyer's report) which showed evidence of what looks like a fairly serious dry rot problem. The full extent of the problem isn't evident because there is carpet and laminate flooring which the surveyor wasn't able to take up. The timber surveyor said it would cost around £3k to address the cause of the damp (a leaking gutter) and significantly more to address the dry rot itself, though he didn't say how exactly how much.

I was expecting the lender to give a valuation much lower than the agreed price, and possibly to put a large retention on the mortgage in order to get the dry rot problem sorted. But I have just received my mortgage offer and the valuation is only £5k lower than the offer price with no retention. Obviously this doesn't reflect the full likely cost of sorting out the problem.

The terms of the lease seem to leave the leaseholders to sort out these kinds of problems themselves. I was preparing to have to pressure the vendor to get the work done (possibly covered by their buildings insurance?) before sale, but I feel this mortgage offer leaves me in less of a strong negotiating position to do that than it would had there been a retention.

So I wanted to draw on the collective wisdom of this forum - what would you do? I could ask that the vendor let the flooring be taken up in order to get a proper look at the damage and get a better estimate of how much it will cost to sort out. I could still just ask that they sort it out before selling.

When my parents sold their old place the buyer withheld about £10k because they wanted to take up the floorboards and look for woodworm, which they later then paid after completion when they discovered there was none. So I guess that might also be an option?

I could just walk away, but I'm hesitant because I like the place, because it's the fourth place I've had an offer accepted on this year (the others all fell through for reasons out of my control) and my fear is that if I don't secure a place ASAP, prices in London will rocket (especially once Help to Buy comes in in January) and I will be priced out of the market for the foreseeable future. I don't want to buy something that's not right just because of this, but it just makes me that but more reluctant to walk away if I don't have to. It seems like a lot of houses in this particular area have these sorts of problems, so I'm not confident that the next one would be any better.

Any help much appreciated!

rob404uk

The quotes you received so far seem mega. 3000 for a replacement gutter? Gold plated?

moneyistooshorttomention

Personally, I'd run....

Part of the reason being that I wouldn't want to be the one living in the place after the dry rot had been treated with a load of nasty chemicals (which I wouldn't be sure would immediately "vanish", rather than lurking around in the place).

Anyway, as its not a detached house, then how do you know it hasn't spread to adjoining properties?

witchy1066

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Personally, I'd run....

Part of the reason being that I wouldn't want to be the one living in the place after the dry rot had been treated with a load of nasty chemicals (which I wouldn't be sure would immediately "vanish", rather than lurking around in the place).

Anyway, as its not a detached house, then how do you know it hasn't spread to adjoining properties?

^^^ me too , run run run
dry rot could be everywhere ,

[Deleted User]

rob404uk wrote: »

The quotes you received so far seem mega. 3000 for a replacement gutter? Gold plated?

It's not just a replacement gutter - it includes capping and venting chimneys and installing a chemical damp proof course at the back of the property. Sorry, should have specified in the original post. The survey was done by an independent surveyor so he's not trying to sell me anything.

[Deleted User]

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Personally, I'd run....

Part of the reason being that I wouldn't want to be the one living in the place after the dry rot had been treated with a load of nasty chemicals (which I wouldn't be sure would immediately "vanish", rather than lurking around in the place).

Anyway, as its not a detached house, then how do you know it hasn't spread to adjoining properties?

I don't know that - obviously a more invasive inspection is needed before that can be determined.

If the dry rot has spread to adjoining properties I don't know what that would mean in terms of liability - would I be in any way liable for treating their properties?

I'm minded to go back to the vendor and say that they need to get the dry rot problem sorted before I will proceed.

moneyistooshorttomention

[Deleted User] wrote:

If the dry rot has spread to adjoining properties I don't know what that would mean in terms of liability - would I be in any way liable for treating their properties?

.

I would regard myself as liable personally if my property had damaged someone else's property. Then again, there's probably (certainly:() people who would interpret "liable" as meaning "legally liable" and wouldn't bother themselves unless the law said they had to.

At a very practical type level, owners of neighbouring properties would be entitled not to bother themselves to treat dry rot if the problem hadn't originated with them in the first place. They might not be very wise to just leave it be, but it would be entirely understandable if someone dug their heels in and refused to pay out to sort out the problem the next door neighbour had created for them and just let said problem run riot throughout their place. With that, it could end up coming back into the "guilty party" home again via the neighbours this time.

I've certainly let a "neighbour created problem" just be (rather than spend MY money sorting out the effect THEIR problem had created for me)...when they denied liability for it, but I knew very well it had come from them in the first place. However, it wasn't such a severe problem as dry rot ...

EDIT: It is of course entirely possible that someone might be able to take their neighbour off to the Small Claims Court to try to get reimbursement for solving a problem that had spread into their home from the neighbour in the first place.

[Deleted User]

Thanks, moneyistooshorttomention. I feel similarly that whoever it started with should be liable. It's difficult to know what to do until I know what the extent of the problem is - if it has spread to the downstairs then I'm minded to walk away rather than inherit that liability.

Atomix

Sounds like money well spent getting the survey done.

Personally I'd be off buying a house without a dry rot issue.

Good luck

:cool:

Building_Surveyor

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Personally, I'd run....

Part of the reason being that I wouldn't want to be the one living in the place after the dry rot had been treated with a load of nasty chemicals (which I wouldn't be sure would immediately "vanish", rather than lurking around in the place).

Anyway, as its not a detached house, then how do you know it hasn't spread to adjoining properties?

Once you've identified the source of moisture and removed the source the dry rot will die by itself. Unlikely that there will be a need for chemicals or removing plaster etc, dependant on the extent of the problem of course. You'll only know for sure by getting a variety of quotes from tradesmen. Dry rot is fungi and lives off moisture. It cannot survive without it. You don't need a dry rot specialist to fix a leaking gutter or whatever it is and your unlikely to know how much damage has been done until the leak has been rectified.

In terms of the house purchase if its a flat, are the other properties affected? I would check that first. If you like the place enough then go for it but make a conscious decision.

AlexMac

I'm with buildingsurveyor above, in that on the basis of my own experience of two properties that had dry rot, you don't have a problem that cannot be fixed easily. In fact you can turn this to your advantage There is some unnecessary hysteria above... "me too , run run run, dry rot could be everywhere..." (don't panic) and "I would regard myself as liable personally if my property had damaged someone else's property." (try that in court!)

Dry rot can and will die back when the source is cured - i.e. when your gutter leak is fixed, unless its massively advanced through years of neglect. I bought an auction property which did have years of negelct but when we fixed the gutters and roof, I got a timber /damp surveyor/salesman in who said, 'Yes, you had wet and dry rot, but now the damp is cured, it's died back, so just replace the odd dodgy skirting board'. Which I did, The house is still standing (Victorian homes are so forgiving).

So if you really fancy this property, use the survey to your advantage and negotiate. Tell'em your survey has said there is at least £3k of fix, plus an unknown extra cost for the likely dry rot/damp problem, but that you are still willing to proceed with a bit if a shift on the price. Maybe £5-6K depending on how hard-faced you are.

And as for the idea that next door can sue for fungus creeping from your place to theirs... ?They must have been watching Doctor Who