Unreasonable buyer with unfair demands

Red-Squirrel_2

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

No worries there - I tend to say "they" - rather than "he" or "she" in contexts in which their gender is totally irrelevant (ie most of the time). They (ie OP) may have started by deliberately using non-sexist language.

Using 'she' to describe a woman is hardly sexist!

They wrote she first anyway, then changed it to they.

AlexMac

Momentarily returning to the original Q...

Having moved my garden shed, I appreciate its an easy DIY job, albeit not to be tackled alone.

...But assuming this one's of similarly standard flimsy panel construction, the act of dismantling and re-assembly will really undermine structural integrity. I had to use lots more beefy screws and bracing brackets to ensure the thing stayed up after relocation...

... so would it be entirely wicked to skimp on the reassembly to the point where the thing blows down in the next stiff breeze... maybe with a few temporary bracings up to the day before completion...

Or is the OP not that evil?

In which case, change tack and leave em a bottle of Champers or Cava, in the shed! And get your reward in heaven (blessed are the meek...)?

hazyjo

AlexMac wrote: »

... so would it be entirely wicked to skimp on the reassembly to the point where the thing blows down in the next stiff breeze... maybe with a few temporary bracings up to the day before completion...

[STRIKE]Or is the OP not that evil?

In which case, change tack and leave em a bottle of Champers or Cava, in the shed! And get your reward in heaven (blessed are the meek...)?[/STRIKE]

Will join you in hell...

MK__2

if91 wrote: »

...Their solicitor has convinced them that they should be suspicious that we are trying to hide something major like a mineshaft (haha!) under the shed and has demanded we move it before exchange.

Whole thread seems to hinge on this proclamation. Can I ask the OP how do you know this? Has the solicitor passed this information to your solicitor, or has the buyer said this to you? or is it speculation?

I only ask, because when one of my neighbours recently sold his property he got all disgruntled when the buyers insisted he removed the dilapidated, asbestos-roofed eyesore of a shed that resided in his garden (which he insisted was a useful storage asset) - but the buyers simply considered was a financial and health liability they didnt want to procure.

Obviously, I am sure your shed is lovely and a real selling point.;)

ReadingTim

MK_ wrote: »

I only ask, because when one of my neighbours recently sold his property he got all disgruntled when the buyers insisted he removed the dilapidated, asbestos-roofed eyesore of a shed that resided in his garden (which he insisted was a useful storage asset) - but the buyers simply considered was a financial and health liability they didnt want to procure.

But why should the vendor foot the bill for something the buyers want? I'd lump 'remove the shed' in the same category as 'pay for my new kitchen/bathroom' and be similarly blunt (Arkell vs Pressdram etc) in reply. And besides, most places are sold as seen aren't they...?!?

JP08

ReadingTim wrote: »

But why should the vendor foot the bill for something the buyers want? I'd lump 'remove the shed' in the same category as 'pay for my new kitchen/bathroom' and be similarly blunt (Arkell vs Pressdram etc) in reply. And besides, most places are sold as seen aren't they...?!?

It's a debatable point. Certainly asking for the vendor to remove old crap from the property (even if it is in the form of a shed shaped health hazard currently) isn't taking the peepee.

We're asking our vendor to remove their old crap from the property we're purchasing. Quite literally in our case. The septic tank is "extremely full". I don't intend my first bill to be removing their excreta.

MK__2

ReadingTim wrote: »

But why should the vendor foot the bill for something the buyers want? I'd lump 'remove the shed' in the same category as 'pay for my new kitchen/bathroom' and be similarly blunt (Arkell vs Pressdram etc) in reply. And besides, most places are sold as seen aren't they...?!?

Not sure about sold as seen. I think "subject to survey" is the default phrase? I'd guess the survey said that they couldn't be sure what was under the shed because they couldn't view it. Standard stuff. Sounds like the solicitor is making a point to cover their backs, but the buyer is risk averse? Dont they usually do indemnity policies for this sort of thing? Mining search should have picked up any mineshaft risks anyway..

In the case of my neighbour, the buyers only found out the shed had an asbestos roof when they had the survey done (couldn't be seen under all the ivy growing over it when they first viewed the house). They said they either wanted it removed, or the cost of their contractor's quote deducted from the house price. My neighbour was fuming, but in the end he went with it because he was worried about them pulling out (I should add that the survey threw up a load of other stuff too that was unresolved).

bertiewhite

Wouldn't searches reveal the presence of mineshafts anyway?

ReadingTim

MK_ wrote: »

Not sure about sold as seen. I think "subject to survey" is the default phrase? I'd guess the survey said that they couldn't be sure what was under the shed because they couldn't view it. Standard stuff. Sounds like the solicitor is making a point to cover their backs, but the buyer is risk averse? Dont they usually do indemnity policies for this sort of thing? Mining search should have picked up any mineshaft risks anyway..

In the case of my neighbour, the buyers only found out the shed had an asbestos roof when they had the survey done (couldn't be seen under all the ivy growing over it when they first viewed the house). They said they either wanted it removed, or the cost of their contractor's quote deducted from the house price. My neighbour was fuming, but in the end he went with it because he was worried about them pulling out (I should add that the survey threw up a load of other stuff too that was unresolved).

Arguably, the point of the survey/searches are to validate that things are indeed as they appear - that the solid looking extension has all the correct permissions and has been built properly for example, and won't fall down, or be faced with an order to knock it down for example.

If I was your neighbour, I'd have said that both the shed and the sale price stays where they are, but your man obviously came to a different conclusion. Which just goes to show, there's little which is objectively "unreasonable" or "unfair" when it comes to buying and selling, only what the buyers and sellers negotiate and agree between themselves.