Help!!! is the survey overzealous??

ethank

The issue here may be that the lender may lend a reduced amount on the property. If that were to happen the buyer would have to provide more money to retain the house.

You could offer to fix some of the items before completion?

konark

You've got to read between the lines with surveyors' reports.They're notorious for finding faults where none exist, advocating further investigations and generally being pessimistic about anything and everything. Most of it is just an aerosol-covering exercise. If the surveyor was from the purchaser's bank it is very likely they will low-ball the price to reduce the lender's exposure to risk. All this and the surveyor's probably only spent half an hour in your house.

The survey of your house has thrown up nothing that isn't on virtually every surveyor's report and is certainly not an excuse for the buyers to reduce their offer.

dirty_magic

The jobs listed don't sound like they'd cost 7k. What has the mortgage survey valued it at? If they've said 165k too you might have a problem, but I'd tell them you've had quotes for 2k and say you're not dropping it more than that.

AdrianC

Tiffanyk wrote: »

he has put 165,000 on there. we sold for 172,000.

Then you're going to have to take the hit, I think.

Your buyer's lender will go with the £165k figure.

Typically smaller detached houses than our are going for upwards of 180,000 in the immediate area - and up to 250k

But they don't have the issues you freely admit your property has...

Tiffanyk wrote: »

oh and the flat roof on the garage isn't adequate and not flashed properly. The buyer was aware as we even discussed the fact that you could see daylight up the side. And to top it all there may be damp in the garage - but isn't this normal as the doors aren't watertight.

Rain comes in a LOT more easily through gaps in the roof than gaps between the door and frame... The fact garage doors aren't watertight is a GOOD thing - you put a wet car in there, the airflow through those gaps, airbricks etc helps to get rid of the moisture. A gap through the roof doesn't quite work like that...

Any tips????

Honestly? If you want normal market value for the property, get it into normal market condition. Otherwise, you're not only going to have to take a hit on the value, but you'll also have to watch a large %age of potential buyers walk straight by with a quick glance.

If somebody looks around and sees an easy £10k of work, they won't knock £10k off their expectation of the value, they'll knock £15k - because they know that there'll be more work than they expect, and they know there's a hassle factor involved.

If you want this sale, accept their surveyor's valuation.

Lungboy

Which survey was it that valued the house at £165k, the full building survey or the mortgage valuation report?

ManofLeisure_2

konark wrote: »

You've got to read between the lines with surveyors' reports.They're notorious for finding faults where none exist, advocating further investigations and generally being pessimistic about anything and everything. .

That simply is not a fair statement.

poppasmurf_bewdley

You don't actually think that if you did knock the money off the price, that the purchaser would spend it on rectifying ANY of the supposed defects, do you?

easilydistracted

Surely the obvious thing to do in the situation is to offer to split the difference? That's what happened with my sale and I think is pretty common. Most of the things that came up on the survey were to me obvious on viewing but I knew I wouldn't get a better offer if I put it back on the market. If the buyer is that difficult then as someone else said it may work well to have another offer. So probably depends how much interest you had initially and how long it was on the market.

AdrianC

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

You don't actually think that if you did knock the money off the price, that the purchaser would spend it on rectifying ANY of the supposed defects, do you?

It doesn't matter if they do or not.

If the house, in good condition, would be worth £x, and a house in poor condition (like this one) would be worth 90% of £x, then it is likely to still be worth 90% of £x with the faults unfixed when next sold.

Actually, it'll be worth even less, because the fabric of the property will be deteriorating if the faults aren't fixed, but that's another story. I can't understand why people seem happy to let their most valuable asset deteriorate for the sake of a bit of maintenance.

leespot

AdrianC wrote: »

It doesn't matter if they do or not.

If the house, in good condition, would be worth £x, and a house in poor condition (like this one) would be worth 90% of £x, then it is likely to still be worth 90% of £x with the faults unfixed when next sold.

Actually, it'll be worth even less, because the fabric of the property will be deteriorating if the faults aren't fixed, but that's another story. I can't understand why people seem happy to let their most valuable asset deteriorate for the sake of a bit of maintenance.

Exactly this. We're about to complete on a property that the current owners have not maintained too well. They've ended up taking a lower offer on the house as opposed to maintaining it over the years and getting a higher asking price.

OP it would be better if you could afford to put things right yourself. Our surveyors report quoted estimated repair costs of approx £8k - but in all honesty that would be a worse case figure. You will get the work done cheaper than they are suggesting, plus you'll also have the peace of mind knowing it is done.