Agents and sellers responsibilities

Locornwall

Back again.

Recently had an offer excepted on another house, after backing away from a house with serious subsidence suspicions.

Due to this previous house, I am very concerned about buying a house with subsidence issues. The house I am now looking to buy has two large trees in the rear garden, some small hairline cracks in the back wall of the house, which I will knock down anyway, as I’d like to put an extension there. There is also a concrete patio area next to the house which has cracks in it. The house is 60 years old.

I will be getting a full survey and welcome further advice on the possible subsidence, trees etc. I would like to know however, what responsibilities sellers and estate agents have to tell you when buying a house? My understanding is that the law changed several years ago and they must tell you any major negative issues about the house?

G_M

Locornwall wrote: »

.......? My understanding is that the law changed several years ago and they must tell you any known major negative issues about the house?

Agent will only know if the seller tells them.


Seller willonly know if either it is very obvious, or they've had a survey done. Or a previous buyer withdraw claiming that was the reason and verifying the claim by showing the survey.

Locornwall

Thanks, that was my feeling.

I think I’ll ask the question, in writing, and if my survey shows something negative, I’ll show them. They will then be in a difficult place regarding selling and I’d like to think I’d get some reduction, as they would have to disclose it to the next person anyway, any advice on that?

davidmcn

Locornwall wrote: »

I think I’ll ask the question, in writing, and if my survey shows something negative, I’ll show them. They will then be in a difficult place regarding selling and I’d like to think I’d get some reduction, as they would have to disclose it to the next person anyway

Would you want to buy it if it shows something negative anyway, even with a reduction? You won't know whether or not they disclose your survey to any future buyers.

Locornwall

davidmcn wrote: »

Would you want to buy it if it shows something negative anyway, even with a reduction? You won't know whether or not they disclose your survey to any future buyers.

It depends on the price and the amount reduced.

My understanding is that they must disclose it. If they don’t, it’s a criminal offence which they can go to prison for two years? The problem would be finding out if they know about it. I was recently interested in buying a house that was sold, then put back for sale. The agent was clear the house had asbestos and was part brick construction. This was based on the previous potential buyers having a survey done to reveal this. They did not hand the survey to the agents, but allowed them to see it.

davidmcn

Locornwall wrote: »

My understanding is that they must disclose it. If they don’t, it’s a criminal offence which they can go to prison for two years?

Yes, but you'll have no idea whether or not they disclose it to future buyers, and they'll know that too. In any event, it doesn't mean they won't get a better price from somebody else.

Locornwall

davidmcn wrote: »

Yes, but you'll have no idea whether or not they disclose it to future buyers, and they'll know that too. In any event, it doesn't mean they won't get a better price from somebody else.

Sounds like most law. However if they get caught out, is it worth the risk. If I found out someone bought it and had problems I’d tell the buyer, as much as I knew.

If I was living in an area and a horror story house got significant media attention I wouldn’t like that. It may give a negative impact to the area and mean property prices fall. If it’s law then people should abide by it and there shouldn’t be any question people wouldn’t observe it.

Davesnave

The problem is, much information about property is conveyed by means of Chinese whispers by people who often misunderstand things, or else perfectly sound written descriptions are interpreted wrongly. Proving criminal intent might often be more difficult than you imagine. EAs are sales people, not builders.

For example, you describe a property here as being of 'part brick construction' and 'had asbestos,' but I havent a clue what that means, considering that at least half the houses in the country must have asbestos in them somewhere and many others are, quite normally, of 'part brick construction.' Mine certainly is. Is it a problem?

Also, you describe a house as 'sold,' but it wasn't, as it returned to the market.

As you may appreciate, misunderstandings, misinterpretations, careless language and losses in translation abound.

Cakeguts

Don't rely on being able to remove large trees. They could have protection orders on them.

kinger101

^^
removing trees can also cause land heave - particularly in clay soils.

Locornwall

Thanks. Which specialists would I need to consult with to decide whether to remove the trees without causing structural issues to the house?