We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Major works, £50k for damp-proofing one flat...
Options
Comments
-
As Tom99 indicates in his post - if it was built in 1890 it may well not have originally had a DPC installed when constructed and therefore na DPC would be classed as an improvement for which you may not have to pay.
You need to carefully read and check your lease and see what it says about it - particularly if the building either does not currently have a DPC or if it's been converted into flats and a DPC was not installed at time of conversion.
Don't see why you should have to contribute towards refurbishment of the damp premises - would have thought that that would be the responsibilty of the leaseholder of that particular flat.0 -
Seems to me it isnt the damp work that is the main costs it's the refurbishment. The owner of the flat should be contributing to this, however I would suggest that if the problem was reported 4 years ago then they could argue it has got worse through negligence ie it wasn't repaired quickly enough and there has been further damage not their fault.
Ultimately the question to ask yourself is, would you have bought your flat if it had been £6500 more than you paid, and if it's worth the extra now a few months on, then you haven't really lost out.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards