Caveat emptor: protecting against latent defects

Ldavies88

Hello,

I am looking at buying a house and the structural survey has identified structural movement caused by a possible tree root system which, if left unresolved, would exacerbate the damage already present.

It is not possible to ascertain the extent of the remedial work required before completing as it would involve digging up the driveway, but it is conceivable that underpinning could be necessary (I am aware of the costs and implications of underpinning). It is likely to be costly whatever the work involved.

I will be seeking specialist advice about this but I wondered whether anyone on here has any experience or knowledge of what it would entail to secure a legally binding agreement from the seller to pay for the cost of the remedial work (or a proportion of it) in the event that either underpinning or other major structural repairs are required. I have reason to believe that any renegotiation of the asking price would not meet these costs.

My limited understanding is that there are standard terms that must be included in the sale of a residential property and which place limits on what can be included. Is there anything that would prevent the inclusion of a clause that would make the seller liable for all or some of the cost of the said repairs should they be needed? Or is this simply a question of freedom of contract and that ordinary principles of contract law apply?

Many thanks,

Luke

Cakeguts

If you don't want to pay for the works on this house don't buy it. You can't force someone to do works to a property just as you can't force them to sell it to you.


This is what surveys are for to find problems. Once you have got the results of a survey you can then see what needs to be done and either buy the house and do it or decide not to buy the house.

davidmcn

Ldavies88 wrote: »

I have reason to believe that any renegotiation of the asking price would not meet these costs.

What reason would that be?

My limited understanding is that there are standard terms that must be included in the sale of a residential property and which place limits on what can be included.

What makes you think that? In theory, you could make the seller liable for the costs which haven't yet been ascertained. In practice, they're very unlikely to accept that as a contractual term - because people generally want a clean break and to know what their budget is for onward purchases etc, and they'll have limited control over what happens to the property after they sell it.

Ldavies88

The issue as I said is that a survey only reveals so much and until completion it’s not possible to start the investigative work needed to determine the scope of the most significant of all the works that need to be done, namely those affecting the structure.

This is not like spending a few grand on a second hand car. In the worst case scenario I would estimate the additional cost of remedial work to be up to £20000-£25000, so it makes sense to get the seller, who disagrees with the surveyor’s assessment, to put his money where his mouth is, or else cut my losses and move on. If nobody has any experience of this then that’s all good. I will just speak to the lawyers.

Cakeguts

Ldavies88 wrote: »

The issue as I said is that a survey only reveals so much and until completion it’s not possible to start the investigative work needed to determine the scope of the most significant of all the works that need to be done, namely those affecting the structure.

This is not like spending a few grand on a second hand car. In the worst case scenario I would estimate the additional cost of remedial work to be up to £20000-£25000, so it makes sense to get the seller, who disagrees with the surveyor’s assessment, to put his money where his mouth is, or else cut my losses and move on. If nobody has any experience of this then that’s all good. I will just speak to the lawyers.

You can't force the seller to repair this property before they sell it to you. If you want to buy it you buy it and then do the work. If you don't want to do the work don't buy it.



You seem to think wrongly that you can get your lawyer to force the seller to do work on his property to make it attractive for you to buy. You can't. You can try to negotiate the price down but the seller doesn't have to give you any money off.



This is all down to you and your choice. Nothing to do with the seller at all.


No seller is going to agree to spend money on a house that they have sold and no longer own. If you suggest this they will just say no and you can't force them.


It sounds as if this isn't the house for you and you need to look for something else.

moneyistooshorttomention

The other point to bear in mind is that - even if the house is found to need underpinning and you then do the work = you could still find yourself having to pay extra on subsequent insurance premiums.

All round - I sympathise, but can't see your idea as being a viable one.

Those sellers are going to find someone (trans. = some mug or other) to buy the house, even if they know very well they've let nearby trees ruin it. and then they will wash their hands of it.

AnotherJoe

I have reason to believe that any renegotiation of the asking price would not meet these costs.

What then is your reasoning that they would agree to an open-ended commitment to pay them later ?
Do you believe that they often make bets in the region of £20k a time and so would be up for this one?

AdrianC

This is not the house for you. Walk away. Move on. Buy another house.


You can ask the seller to do the work pre-sale. He might accept, but you will get the cheapest possible work done.


You can ask the seller to cover the cost of work post-sale. He might accept, but it's massively unlikely, and if he refuses, you will need to chase him through the courts.


You cannot force the seller to do anything he does not want to do. He does not have to sell the property to you.

LadyDee

I was in a similar situation as your seller. House had subsidence, claimed on insurance, had all the underpinning done with all the appropriate guarantees etc. (the work was over seen and contractors instructed by insurers), and at the end of the day I had a perfectly good solid house worth considerably more than it had been, so that's when I sold it. It delayed my sale for a couple of years but I was the one to benefit at the end of the day.

My insurance company agreed to continue cover for the new owners (this was a condition of sale for the buyers), so we were all happy.

DaftyDuck

OP: just stick to renting!

Ldavies88

What then is your reasoning that they would agree to an open-ended commitment to pay them later ?
Do you believe that they often make bets in the region of £20k a time and so would be up for this one?

It would not necessarily be open ended. It could be a clause stipulating that if structural movement is determined by an independent structural engineer to be the cause of the damage that he pays up to a certain amount of the remedial work.

The seller does not deem it necessary to dig up the driveway to check the foundations and has given verbal assurances about the causes of the cracks to structure. He is therefore unlikely to agree to a reduction in price on that basis. It makes sense therefore to make sure that his words actually mean something more than an assurance and to agree in advance something which is legally binding.