Roof repairs after selling

Jenniefour

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Unless you were specifically asked by your purchaser if the roof needed repair and you replied "no", then you have no obligation in the matter.

That is not normally how those enquiries take place at all - vendor's management company is normally asked if there are any repairs outstanding/planned, or words to that effect. So failure to include a leak/roof repair on that enquiry might have some comeback.

Audrey_Wright

If there was no deception during the buying phase, by your side, you don't hold responsibility.
If you ever said the roof is perfectly fine and needs no repairs - that might be a problem. But if you were never asked for it, it's no longer your job. The current owner should have had his survey on the spot.
Furthermore, since the first documented problem was five years ago, we can simply count it as wear and tear type of thing.
You're pretty much safe, don't worry.

Jenniefour

Audrey_Wright wrote: »

Furthermore, since the first documented problem was five years ago, we can simply count it as wear and tear type of thing.

This is not true. If any queries made were not answered factually and truthfully, then documentation going back some years which directly contradicts information provided in the selling process actually supports a claim. It evidences that there was a problem and it was not addressed in a timely and appropriate manner.

OP, you need to get back to your solicitor on this one, if you haven't already.

DRP

westclok wrote: »

Yes. I would challenge "necessary" though. The original problem was highlighted over 5 years ago. Nothing has been done due to no fault of mine. The evidence has me attending meetings and arranging estimates. A majority was never present to agree on the extent of the repairs required.

did you get any estimates?

surely it depends on what the roofer(s) reported back to you whether repairs were even necessary, let alone the extent of them.

The timescale suggests that repairs weren't exactly urgent and any current issues may be unrelated, but what did the experts tell you at the time?

Marmaduke123

AdrianC wrote: »

This is a flat. Would it not be the freeholder's problem?

Yes, the freeholder would be responsible, but would be entitled to recoup the cost from the leaseholders. In this case, it sounds as if the freehold is owned by a company set up for the purpose and in its turn owned by the leaseholders.

There's a danger in this type of arrangement that the leaseholders choose not to pay into a contingency fund, and when eventually and inevitably repairs or serious maintenance are required they are jointly faced with a big bill.

sgun

It was over a year ago. We have had ALOT of rain (even in the East of England its been wet in the last year). Surely if it was that urgent i.e something you should have disclosed, this issue would have come up way before now. Is it the case that the other owners are getting themselves together and the issue has come up again?


I say too bad to your buyers, they should have checked. It is the first thing I would check if buying a flat.