Should I be negotiating a lower price?

lee111s

Look elsewhere...

ging84

sounds like possibly a bad buy

as for should you reduce you offer, depends on the circumstances, you may not have known about the flooding, but that does not mean it's not already been priced in.

for example, imagine you had a village, in one half of the village the average house of a particular type was selling at £100k and in the other half they were more like £150k, if you were buying on in the cheaper half and had offered £100k then discovered that all the houses in that half of the village had been flooded regularly, the ones in the other half were safe, you have not found a reason to reduce the £100k offer, you've found the reason why these houses are 30% less in the first place.

RedfordML

Kua wrote: »

I agreed a price of £91k on a property but it transpires that:

Flooding has occurred "2 or 3 times in last 10 years we have witnessed a few cm's of water in the cellar, although this seems to have not happened since the drains on the street were redone and the road recovered."

Obviously that's no guarantee it won't happen in future.

This wasn't mentioned at all previously, though of course I should have asked that specific question.

They've had to wait a bit for me to sort my mortgage out. But they put it back on the market recently and will take it off once I sort out a survey which is imminent.

Do I have a case for lowering my offer? I don't want to lose the house but it does affect the value. Especially as it increases my buildings insurance big time!

Thanks!

As others have said, I wouldnt be negotiating, I would be running..................

What are the + of the property that makes you so keen to take this on?

Davesnave

RedfordML wrote: »

As others have said, I wouldnt be negotiating, I would be running..................

What are the + of the property that makes you so keen to take this on?

It's fairly obvious that people aren't 'getting' this.

Older houses are usually the ones that have cellars, and unless they are tanked, these will tend to get some water in them in periods of very wet weather. This is normal and it is not flooding in the sense that the word is usually used.

We had a house in the centre of a town, high above any streams or other water collection places and on a slope. It still had minor water ingress in the cellar a couple of times a year. That had been happening since Queen Anne's time, and it's still happening, but there is no flood risk. It's just an inconvenience so far as storing items there is concerned. (We used to hang stuff down from the beams or put it on Dexion shelving.)

I think until you know more about the insurance position there isn't much more you can do. If that's not in any way special and expensive, then unless you specifically want a dry cellar, it's a non-issue.

Kua

Davesnave wrote: »

It's fairly obvious that people aren't 'getting' this.

Older houses are usually the ones that have cellars, and unless they are tanked, these will tend to get some water in them in periods of very wet weather. This is normal and it is not flooding in the sense that the word is usually used.

We had a house in the centre of a town, high above any streams or other water collection places and on a slope. It still had minor water ingress in the cellar a couple of times a year. That had been happening since Queen Anne's time, and it's still happening, but there is no flood risk. It's just an inconvenience so far as storing items there is concerned. (We used to hang stuff down from the beams or put it on Dexion shelving.)

I think until you know more about the insurance position there isn't much more you can do. If that's not in any way special and expensive, then unless you specifically want a dry cellar, it's a non-issue.

Hi Dave, I assume you declare this to insurers. Do you have trouble getting insurance?

Davesnave

Kua wrote: »

Hi Dave, I assume you declare this to insurers. Do you have trouble getting insurance?

I was talking past tense and a long time ago.

I'm sure we didn't though, as there would have been no need. It would have taken something like Noah's flood to have caused any damage. The house is Grade 2 listed. The head height wasn't brilliant and the whole floor was flagged rather nicely in slate, so I have reason to think it's stayed the same.

It was just a minor inconvenience, like your "few centimetres," but we got around it in various ways.

I've had this conversation recently with my daughter who's buying a 1900s terrace with a cellar. Her surveyor's report said something like "There is evidence that the cellar floor can become wet."

She was disappointed. I said, "What did you expect?"

Modern houses with undercrofts are usually tanked, but in older ones the cost would have been prohibitive. They were, first and foremost, the 'coal hole.'

Kua

Hi Dave, Are you saying "we didn't" to declaring the "flooding" or to getting buildings insurance?

Am wondering if its something I have to declare as its the cellar and not the house. And can barely be considered flooding.

Have talked to two close neighbours who have not experienced flooding of any description and were surprised that this house had.

Davesnave wrote: »

I was talking past tense and a long time ago.

I'm sure we didn't though, as there would have been no need. It would have taken something like Noah's flood to have caused any damage. The house is Grade 2 listed. The head height wasn't brilliant and the whole floor was flagged rather nicely in slate, so I have reason to think it's stayed the same.

It was just a minor inconvenience, like your "few centimetres," but we got around it in various ways.

I've had this conversation recently with my daughter who's buying a 1900s terrace with a cellar. Her surveyor's report said something like "There is evidence that the cellar floor can become wet."

She was disappointed. I said, "What did you expect?"

Modern houses with undercrofts are usually tanked, but in older ones the cost would have been prohibitive. They were, first and foremost, the 'coal hole.'

Kua

Got this extra information from the vendor:

"We've seen have no sign of the minimal flooding we experienced on three occasions for years - more details will follow in the information he will receive once his solicitor has been instructed."

To be honest I do trust the vendor (just gut feeling after they showed me around - nice family - got on well with them) and don't expect the cellar to flood while I'm there. And like I've said before, if it does flood it won't be the end of the world.

The big issue is building insurance really. Do I need to declare the past flooding and if so how badly will it effect my premium? And if it does... should I negotiate a lower price? (anything that gets me the house at a lower price is a bonus! but may be I'm being greedy!!) I don't think it was priced in because other neighbours don't experience the flooding.

I'd also like to figure out the point of no return. I now have my mortgage application ready to send once I have collected a couple more documents.

Kua

According to this my property is not at risk to flooding... I think it actually came from improper drainage on the road.

Edit: Sorry had meant to quote environment agency link!

Davesnave

Kua wrote: »

Hi Dave, Are you saying "we didn't" to declaring the "flooding" or to getting buildings insurance?

Am wondering if its something I have to declare as its the cellar and not the house. And can barely be considered flooding.

Have talked to two close neighbours who have not experienced flooding of any description and were surprised that this house had.

Yes, there was insurance, but no declarations or claims.

To be honest, I can't conceive of a scenario when a normal ingress like that would lead to a claim buildings claim. After all, it was stone walls and stone floor!