[Buyer] Should we re-negotiate offer?

somethingcorporate

Your "friend" charged you £20 for that inspection? Most builders I have ever used (none were friends) did inspections and quotes free of charge!

SimoneD

Most houses in the UK that are 90 years old will be more than likely to have some damp and the roof needs some work. Mine had both issues when I bought ten years ago not fixed yet and had no problems. Surveyors always feel they have to find something even if it is nothing! Having said that it would be your call if you want the house or not based upon your surveyors findings. In the great scheme of things it's not much money and just to keep the house sale moving along for all concerned you could ask them to consider knocking £500 off the sale price and you will get the jobs done in the next 10 years when you have purchased the house - if you feel the need to fix the problems.

I’m a bit dubious your house have cavity walls - is you builder sure you have them? if your house is 90 years old its highly unlikely it will have as they were not widely used in the UK until the 1930s.

Hoploz

Doesn't sound like there's a huge amount wrong with the place, in my opinion.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

That's why it's only going to be £2.5K to fix; that isn't a huge amount either. Still no reason why the buyer should pay for it if they can get the seller to.

Hoploz

The reason the buyer should pay rather than the seller, is that the buyer will get any (potential) benefit from the repair work. The seller has been living there blissfully unaware and has had no reason to spend money repairing something they didn't know about until some stranger pointed it out.

Just my opinion.

bouicca21

A reduction would be nice if OP can get it. What's the market like? Are buyers or sellers in the stronger position? Always worth a punt.

But if no reduction is forthcoming, a cost benefit analysis would pitch the cost of the repairs against money already spent on mortgage applicaiton etc which will be lost if they pull out and against the virtual certainty that any other house in the same price bracket will have similar issues. As I read it none of these things needs doing straightaway. Plenty of time to save up.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Hoploz wrote: »

The reason the buyer should pay rather than the seller, is that the buyer will get any (potential) benefit from the repair work. The seller has been living there blissfully unaware and has had no reason to spend money repairing something they didn't know about until some stranger pointed it out.

Just my opinion.

Who pays for it usually comes down to who is keenest to complete the sale. But a buyer offers on a house on the condition it appears to be in at the time of offer. If something they could not see at the time comes up, the fact that the vendors lived with it is neither here nor there. It is £2000 worth of work that the buyer was not aware of when the offer was made. It is only logical that the house is worth £2000 less to them then it was if that work didn't need doing.