Buying a top floor flat in a building with an old roof - need advises

Madeleine08

Hi there,


I'm a first time buyer and soon I should get the keys for my flat but I have some concerns:


-The flat is on the top floor of a 1930s building (with 6 flats in total) and the roof above my flat is the original roof from the 30s which apaprentlyhas a lifespan of 60 to 100 years. The home report says it's at the end of its serviceable life and maintainance costs may be higher than normal.
-In the building there is no factor, (a building mantainance contract) so being able to convince all the owners to pay their share for replacing the roof, in case there should be water infiltration problems in my flat, could be harder than normal.

Does anyone have any experience in buying a flat with an old roof? any advice?

I'm getting some quotes for the costs of replacing the roof from 2 roofers but my worries are that not only I could receive a huge bill after few months from the purchase, but that it could be a big problem also to get work done because there is not a factor in the building.

Anyone had a similar experience?

Thanks in advance!!

ProDave

Home report = you are in Scotland, which is important.

It is more usual up here for flats to be sold freehold, not leashold. When I owned such a flat, I owned 50% of the freehold, the flat above owned the other 50%. It was clear in the deeds that "common parts" with foundations and roof specifically mentioned were the joint responsibility of both flats and repairable at 50% cost each.

It might need replacing straight away. It might last another 50 years. Frankly a roofing company is the LAST person I would ask for an opinion of it's condition, they have a vested interest in telling you it needs replacing now.

The time to have addressed this was before you concluded the missives.

Skibunny40

Agree with ProDave that you need to check the deeds as to who is responsible for the roof. If there's no mention, then check out the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004.

I'd actually say not having a factor might save you money - the monthly costs can be horrendous and often add up to more than one-off repair costs ( even if not everyone coughs up!)

davidmcn

A factor might help to organise major repairs, but they're still not going to happen until everybody stumps up their share. What do you know about how common repairs etc are currently managed?

Madeleine08

Hi there, thanks for the answers. Yes, I'm in Scotland. In the home report it says that all 6 owners are responsible for fixing the common parts, however, because there is not a factor, I'm a bit concerned it can be a problem to get all owners to agree to pay for eventual issues with the roof because I may be the only one affected by the problem.

Madeleine08

Hi devidmcn, I'm not sure about that. I tried to go to speak with a neighbour yesterday but there was no one in the flat. I just know that part of the roof has been reroofed in 2013 but the part above me is the old one.

Pixie5740

Madeleine08 wrote: »

Hi there, thanks for the answers. Yes, I'm in Scotland. In the home report it says that all 6 owners are responsible for fixing the common parts, however, because there is not a factor, I'm a bit concerned it can be a problem to get all owners to agree to pay for eventual issues with the roof because I may be the only one affected by the problem.

As has already been explained if one owner chooses not to stump up then it doesn't matter if there's a factor or not. There are ways of dealing with non-payers and it makes not one jot of difference if there's a factor involved or not.

To give some context I live on the top floor of a building that has no factor and as far as I know the roof has been there since the 19th century. I don't lose any sleep over it but if you are this worried perhaps you shouldn't be looking to purchase a flat built in the 1930s. Maybe a flat isn't for you full stop.

westernpromise

If it's any help, my parents bought their house in 1970 and were told the roof might need redoing soon. 48 years later the same roof is still fine and hasn't been a problem.

As others have said, asking a roofer if you need a new roof is a bit like asking an insurance salesman if you're underinsured.

need_an_answer

I too agree with what others say regarding a roof life span ours lasted almost 90 years before needing replacing.

Having said that you can quite easily see the effect an older roof will have on the top floors of a property.

Is there water staining or excessive draughts within the flat,or maybe areas of mould around the tops where walls meet ceilings?
They may have been covered over for the purpose of the sale but you will know when that roof needs replacing as those sorts of things become evident more and more.

Its no bad thing to get the roof replaced you will benefit possibly the most over the other property occupants although again that doesn't mean just because they are not directly impacted that they have no liability towards the replacement.

I would certainly get some quotes from roofers even if its a case of you know how much to expect should the work need doing.

Madeleine08

Pixie5740 wrote: »

As has already been explained if one owner chooses not to stump up then it doesn't matter if there's a factor or not. There are with non-payers and it makes not one jot of difference if there's a factor involved or not.

To give some context I live on the top floor of a building that has no factor and as far as I know the roof has been there since the 19th century. I don't lose any sleep over it but if you are this worried perhaps you shouldn't be looking to purchase a flat built in the 1930s. Maybe a flat isn't for you full stop.

As mentioned above, I'm a first time buyer so I'm not really aware of any of these issues such as factor/no factor, roof maintenance etc., this is why I'm here asking for advice, there is no need to answer like this. Thanks for the link anyway.