4 days before completion... New house flooded.

maninthestreet

So who left the tap running, and why was the overflow disconnected?

flora48

I am pleased you took insurance Peronihull. Hope your vendors still have theirs too. Looks like the insurers may have to fight this one out.

Hopefully the water has not had time to penetrate far into the floors and plaster otherwise I fear it make take a while to dry out. If you can't move in you should check if your insurer will pay for alternative accommodation. Hate to tell you our flood took 6 months to dry out with huge fans and de humidifiers but hopefully this water hasn't had time to penetrate. On the bright side we did end up with the whole groundfloor redecorated and new flooringthought the ground flooor, hall, stairs and landing.

Good luck, perhaps you will get a refurbished house to move into!!

movilogo

All lenders make a condition that buyers take building insurance on exchange. This is almost a legal requirement.

gazter

movilogo wrote: »

All lenders make a condition that buyers take building insurance on exchange. This is almost a legal requirement.

But the legal obligation is with the seller to hand over a property on completion in the state it was when exchanged. Is it not?

Peronihull

Todays update:

The vendor is at the property, trying to remove water. They are also having estimates for how much it will be to rectify the damage. My solicitor want us to still complete, but we need to get some assurances the vendor will pay costs. As part of this, they have put this to the vendors sols but have asked for me to get my own independent estimate. I have found someone to do this tomorrow at midday, but now the EA is refusing to arrange access.

They won't give access as vendor now refusing to accept liability. Because the insurance won't pay out. As it was at their own fault and at their own risk.

They will offer us 1000 towards refurb, but it will delay completion. I have rejected it as I don't know if it sufficient or will cover the costs of the delay.

Then later today:

The EA has now decided to let me in. We are going in tomorrow to review and get an estimate as I think £1K is not sufficient.

Apparently my solicitor saying they would be in breach made things slightly different. As they have removed the carpet - they will have to pay for that plus what ever the damage will cost to rectify.

The property is double insured. The issue is their cover is not sufficient.

Peronihull

maninthestreet wrote: »

So who left the tap running, and why was the overflow disconnected?

They disconnected the overflow when the washing machine was removed.

We don't know who left the tap running and when it was left on. I last visited around the middle of December and no damage at that time and tap was not left on.

Since then the EA is saying they don't know who has had access and vendor saying it wasn't them.

Peronihull

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Sounds like its the previous owners fault it flooded, ie "kitchen tap left on".

Guess the other thing OP needs to know now is if its the guilty parties' insurer (ie the vendor) or the innocent parties (ie their own).

Would it be of benefit to OP to get the EA to give a written statement that he had been with OP when he went round and confirm that the cause was that tap being left on (as the burden really shouldn't fall on OP's insurers) and maybe a bit of proof its vendors fault might place it "on the correct shoulders"??

Will include this in my statement, I was also not alone on the visit - my husband and brother can bear witness.

Thanks for your suggestion.

moneyistooshorttomention

Peronihull wrote: »

They disconnected the overflow when the washing machine was removed.

We don't know who left the tap running and when it was left on. I last visited around the middle of December and no damage at that time and tap was not left on.

Since then the EA is saying they don't know who has had access and vendor saying it wasn't them.

The EA must, presumably, have a list of anyone they have allowed/taken into the property since mid-December. It may well be that EA hadn't taken/allowed in anyone since that time. In that case = would it be possible to get EA to confirm in writing that they haven't taken in/allowed in anyone since that date? I would have thought they would be glad of a chance to say "Not us gov...not our fault" and get themselves out of the picture as possible Guilty Party.

That would then leave it totally on the vendors shoulders as to anyone he had taken in/allowed in since that time (eg himself!).

EDIT: I wouldn't have thought £1k would cover it either. There is:
- replacement carpet
- machine purchase or hire to dry the place out
- electricity to run said machine
- redecorating costs

that comes to mind straight off.

The property really does need thorough drying out. Right now, I am bearing in mind good friends of mine who bought a house that had got flooded at one point (as part of the whole area flooding). Some months later they bought the house and not long after that wondered what the problem was that they discovered. End result = dry rot that needed treating. Cause of dry rot = apparently the fact the property hadn't been fully dried-out.

Reece_

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

The EA must, presumably, have a list of anyone they have allowed/taken into the property since mid-December. It may well be that EA hadn't taken/allowed in anyone since that time. In that case = would it be possible to get EA to confirm in writing that they haven't taken in/allowed in anyone since that date? I would have thought they would be glad of a chance to say "Not us gov...not our fault" and get themselves out of the picture as possible Guilty Party.

That would then leave it totally on the vendors shoulders as to anyone he had taken in/allowed in since that time (eg himself!).

EDIT: I wouldn't have thought £1k would cover it either. There is:
- replacement carpet
- machine purchase or hire to dry the place out
- electricity to run said machine
- redecorating costs

that comes to mind straight off.

The property really does need thorough drying out. Right now, I am bearing in mind good friends of mine who bought a house that had got flooded at one point (as part of the whole area flooding). Some months later they bought the house and not long after that wondered what the problem was that they discovered. End result = dry rot that needed treating. Cause of dry rot = apparently the fact the property hadn't been fully dried-out.

Agreed, I highly doubt 1k will cover possible costs, I'll add possible new unit under the sink as that may be blown, new kickboards too. If it's soaked the floorboards enough, although there may be no damage, once fully dried out they may become a bit loose and squeaky from swelling and shrinking, not a major job but a job to do nonetheless .
With water damage there are often things that will present themselves as problems weeks down the line that upon first inspection may not be considered.

Peronihull

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

The EA must, presumably, have a list of anyone they have allowed/taken into the property since mid-December. It may well be that EA hadn't taken/allowed in anyone since that time. In that case = would it be possible to get EA to confirm in writing that they haven't taken in/allowed in anyone since that date? I would have thought they would be glad of a chance to say "Not us gov...not our fault" and get themselves out of the picture as possible Guilty Party.

The house has one of those "key safes" which allows someone to get in with a code to get the key from the outside.

I don't know the code and I am always accompanied, however, when I emailed the EA to arrange access for contractors (for estimates for items raised in the survey) they replied saying

"If you need contractors to go in to the property, we can arrange this with them.

Feel free to pass them our details and we can meet them there, or giver them the code (depending on the vendors decision)."

I will have to check, but I have a feeling that they didn't "accompany" everyone by giving out the code, which they don't want to admit.

Equally the same could be said of the Vendors....