Problems after completion

ashe

The trouble with trusting a 'mortgage survey' is its literally a valuation. Is the property worth enough for the bank to lend money on, and a leaking shower even if they spotted that would probably not be much of a concern.

A homebuyers report is about £400 and when compared to the high cost of fixing issues is money well spent.

The first property i offered on about 13 years ago, was decorated in tip top condition with new everything. The homebuyers report I got through the mortgage company AFTER the valuation had been done as changed my mind about it, basically ripped it to shreds and said they had decorated over loads of problems like bad floorboards, damp, uneven floors, there was roof damage that had been repaired cleverly, the list was endless. they put a retention on the mortgage of about 40k so I walked away. But the bank was initially happy to lend based on the quick valuation that was done.

Buildings insurance is for things that happen right now, it does not cover you retrospectively for things that have happened already, otherwise no one would get a survey, they'd buy and then put a claim in. It is like taking out health insurance when you've got a bad heart and trying to claim if you have a heart attack - the issue was already there so you would not be covered. If something happens now thats new, then you are good to claim, but not on preexisting things that you just weren't made aware of or did not discover.

eddddy

Ivy82 wrote: »

I see two things here, its not poor maintenance, 1. when we specifically asked about skirting and leakage, seller was obliged to tell may be they had issues in the past that got fixed but skirting never changed, or say they dont know. but the seller was clear and said "no leakage or damage" its hiding information.

With property transactions, all contractual terms and conditions must appear within the single written contract.

Anything the vendor says, writes, emails, etc does not form part of the contract.

If you had asked the question as a pre-contract enquiry (via solicitors), and the seller had given a misleading reply - that reply would have formed part of the contract. So you might have a basis for claiming from the seller.

Ivy82 wrote: »

2. even if the seller isnt aware, we were made aware of the leakage from the plumber as soon as we got this property and quoted high cost for ripping off to do analysis, which should be covered by insurance. the source of the leak is the more trouble some area bathroom it would affect the condition of the property and might incur more damage if not done. the idea of the insurance is to put the client back in the position before the damage occurred.

You mention that the property is an apartment.

So I guess you are claiming on the Freeholder's block buildings insurance policy for damage to buildings caused by escape of water.

It sounds like the insurers are declining the claim on the basis that you knew of the water damage before you bought.

I'm no insurance expert, but I would say firstly that you did not know of the damage (it was not mentioned to you by the seller or the mortgage valuer), and in any case, ask which term in the policy allows them to decline the claim on that basis.

(But TBH, if they come back and see that the seller has done a botched repair, they will then decline the claim on the basis that the leak results from bad workmanship - so perhaps it's a waste of time anyway.)

ProDave

YOUR insurance will not cover something that happened before they took on the risk so forget even trying.

Just fix it. I doubt it will cost more than a couple of hundred £. You would probably pay that in the insurance excess anyway.

eddddy

ProDave wrote: »

YOUR insurance will not cover something that happened before they took on the risk so forget even trying.

As I suggested in post #14, the OP may be claiming on the freeholder's block buildings insurance policy.

That will have been in place before the OP bought the apartment.

cloo

Will be cheaper and less stressful to fix yourself rather than trying to launch fruitless legal action etc.

kinger101

Ivy82 wrote: »

I see two things here, its not poor maintenance, 1. when we specifically asked about skirting and leakage, seller was obliged to tell may be they had issues in the past that got fixed but skirting never changed, or say they dont know. but the seller was clear and said "no leakage or damage" its hiding information. 2. even if the seller isnt aware, we were made aware of the leakage from the plumber as soon as we got this property and quoted high cost for ripping off to do analysis, which should be covered by insurance. the source of the leak is the more trouble some area bathroom it would affect the condition of the property and might incur more damage if not done. the idea of the insurance is to put the client back in the position before the damage occurred.

Didn't really answer the question, but you stated earlier a bodged repair. This would be regarded as poor maintenance.

maisie_cat

Ivy82 wrote: »

The leakage from under the shower was there before and seller fixed it, it was a poor job thats what plumber said. And we asked few times why skirt board looks different, didnt see the black underneath as we have no clue, the seller cleverly said its wear and tear. Ensuite bathroom had damp in the ceiling and asked the seller if there was any leak at all, its a clear NO, as in never, atleast that time they should have said about past experience.

we didnt do individual survey, trusted mortgage survery.

Its an apartment and the property insurance was transferred, all such leakage should be covered

If the seller had a leak and it was fixed to their knowledge then the answer to the question would be no. I bought a refurbished property years ago that had a poorly fitted shower, a few months later the kitchen ceiling came down but there was no comeback as we couldn't prove that the seller knew there was a leak.

Lemonsqueezer78

He "cleverly" said it was wear and tear.

And you "stupidly" decided to take their word for it and not conduct your own investigations.

Not only that but he could convincingly argue that a historic leak was a case of "wear and tear". That phrase covers pretty much covers anything that could happen to a building, save for civil unrest, natural disasters or war.

This is a case of live, learn and pay-up I'm afraid. As others have suggested, you don't really have a leg to stand on with this.

sleepymans

You!!!8217;ve been mildly suckered.....we!!!8217;ve all been there. I!!!8217;m afraid you have to suck it up!

csgohan4

sleepymans wrote: »

You!!!8217;ve been mildly suckered.....we!!!8217;ve all been there. I!!!8217;m afraid you have to suck it up!

Agree there, our house had a leak causing water to leak from the kitchen ceiling, soon after moving.

Fixed it, but wallet alot light too, you live and learn