Should we reduce our offer due to flood risk?

Tzili

AdrianC wrote: »

"Irrelevant"? No. It's simple historical fact. And, of course, as the disclaimer legally says... "past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance"

However, you cannot simply hand-wave it away because it doesn't suit your own over-simplified bald statement - "these things are cyclic". The simple fact is that the historical data is NOT cyclical.

Let's look even longer-term... and, even better, let's put it into real terms, to cancel out inflation...

Ok. Maybe cyclic is not the most precise technical word to use. But corrections are there always. Sometimes mild, sometimes brutal. The overall increase in price comes from the increasing population and the offer not adjusting accordingly because bigger profits.

This is not the point in the end. The housing market is one of the most important pillars of the current banking and monetary system. It will never really crash for good as this would mean freedom for the masses. But those corrections are the ones that are worrying me especially if I would have to sell to potentially very picky buyers.
__________

Thank you everybody for all your replies. It appears I have to study more thoroughly the flooding history of this property.

Smodlet

sillyhilly wrote: »

There are many FTBs who have this common sense already, but don't come on to this forum with stupid questions. But being a FTB, it's easy to get spooked given that it is the largest purchase that you've ever made in your life, and you are swamped with worries that your dream home can be pulled from under you at a moments notice thanks to the utter BS conveyancing processes that we need to put up with in this country.

In fact, I've seen just as many second/third-time buyers posting equally as stupid questions - I refer you to the "why isn't my house selling" threads, where it is immediately obvious why it isn't.

Whilst you're looking at that, perhaps you could climb down from your high horse?

Lovin' your choice of words; "swamped with worries", "pulled from under you". Thanks, I think I'll stay on my high horse and keep my feet dry.

DairyQueen

Tzili wrote: »

Right now, we are very close to a system reset.

I have lived through 3 major 'system resets'. Periodically the property market crashes. If you can't accept this then don't invest.

Bottom line is that we all need somewhere to live and property-ownership has proven to be the best way of providing a roof-over-head in the long term. Also, when prices crash this acts as an incentive for those moving upmarket. You may sell at a loss, or at minimal profit, but the house that you buy will be proportionately cheaper. That has worked in my favour twice. The losers are those who are forced to sell, and/or downsizers, in such markets.

Tzili wrote: »

The basic problem remains. The property is one with a high risk of surface flooding. The offer was placed not being aware of this. Some people say this is not a big deal, some say it might be a problem.

The property will have been priced relative to the flood risk and to local demand. If you don't want to take any risk then simply walk away. Problem solved.

Tzili wrote: »

The 10.000 GBP reduction is meant to cover some of the mitigation actions.

Waste of time. I have investigated these and, tbh, the costs outweigh the risk. Providing the house is insurable then you will be covered for repairs anyway. The only risk you are taking is not financial but the inconvenience (considerable) in the rare situation that the house floods.

Tzili wrote: »

Considering 50 pounds insurance increase due to this risk

Is that a definite quote? If so, I would grab it. That's an incredibly low additional premium for flood risk (depending on whether in zone 1, 2 or 3). If the property is in Zone 1 then the chances of flooding are so remote that 50 quid may be the additional premium.

I am in zone 2. I pay an additional £200p.a. Peanuts compared to the cost of a clean-up if the house actually flooded. The FloodRe scheme is available to (most) properties in flood risk areas but from my experience mainstream insurance is cheaper. Providing you can answer "no" to the question: :Has any part of your property flooded in the last 10 years?" then mainstream cover is available.

Smodlet

@sillyhilly If you quote me, don't take my posts out of context. Maybe you could also contact the Ministry of Missing A Sense of Humour but that is probably lost on you.

To needananswer, :A

Crashy_Time

markin wrote: »

Stick to the fact that the blocks are cracked and past their best, you may get 5k for it.

Unless its near a river im not sure i would think to check flood maps before putting an offer.

But as soon as the is a flood the value will drop, do you want that high risk of you being in negative equity?

Yep, and flooding is probably going to get worse in future not better. Don`t listen to any claptrap from the seller, they know they are in a weak position, so substantially lower your offer IMO.

00ec25

Tzili wrote: »

Regarding the blocks, we did not consider them a problem at the time of putting the offer. A potential surface flood is the main concern.

do you actually understand what a "surface water flood" means?

it means water cannot drain away faster than it is collecting. There are 2 factors to consider:
1. water is arriving faster than it can leave:
- it is raining too hard
- a river has burst and the water flows towards you
- a pipe has burst and the water flows towards you

2. it cannot "leave" because it cannot soak away
- the property is surrounded by "hard standing" (blocks in your words) so water cannot drain into them, all it can do is flow across them towards.... ? (your house)
- the ground is soaking wet because of prolonged rainfall so the ground simply cannot absorb more water so the water stays on top of the ground

If you told me you were offering £10k less because of a few cracked paving stones I would laugh in your face and tell you to go back to school.
- cracks are what water drains into
- relaying paving so water flows across it and is sent away from the house makes no difference if the water is arriving faster than it leaves.

Your solution will cost more than 10k, you need to dig up the entire garden for at least 30 meters around it to a depth of the natural water table. Then fill the resulting hole with porous material so water cannot flow across it as the water will soak into the ground faster than it can flow across the ground. You will also need to install a tank and a pump so that you actively remove the water faster than it arrives. Obviously the pump needs to send the water a long way away so it does not come back

OR

you do what everyone else round here has done and you make a flood barrier to fit the doors when threatened or (if rich) you fit permanent flood doors so you are always protected.
You do not talk about "broken blocks"
You also do the above only when you live in an area where the flood risk is genuinely high, not some statistical model's prediction.

Davesnave

This thread is way too long and has gone off track. Doozergirl summed-up the situation many posts ago:

Doozergirl wrote: »

A piece of paper is a guide for you to investigate further. All these searches will reveal potential issues.... the highlight doesn't mean that the actual house is affected or is likely to be.

It isn't an invitation to reduce the price until you have solid facts.

The advice is to do some proper research here.

TLDR. Look carefully at all the evidence you can find and take a view.

It's the same for every question that looking in a detailed way at any house will throw up, including your own observations about the area, the neighbours etc, which no search is going to reveal in detail. No one here can take the decision for you, or predict the vendor's reactions if you decide to lower your offer, but sorting out the apparent conflict of information via your solicitor, surveyor, and by getting insurance quotes is the priority.

If you want to discuss property price cycles etc, we have a place for that too:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=149

Crashy_Time

Tzili wrote: »

Ok. Maybe cyclic is not the most precise technical word to use. But corrections are there always. Sometimes mild, sometimes brutal. The overall increase in price comes from the increasing population and the offer not adjusting accordingly because bigger profits.

This is not the point in the end. The housing market is one of the most important pillars of the current banking and monetary system. It will never really crash for good as this would mean freedom for the masses. But those corrections are the ones that are worrying me especially if I would have to sell to potentially very picky buyers.
__________

Thank you everybody for all your replies. It appears I have to study more thoroughly the flooding history of this property.

It is the "masses" allowing themselves to be manipulated by Fear and Greed that mainly allowed the bankers to blow this absolute monster of a property debt bubble?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/pmi-slide-uk-construction-drop-output-building-a8984176.html

Tzili

@Crashy Time the masses allowed themselves Finance Capitalism and Compound Interest. Don't underestimate the willingness of the masses to shoot themselves in the knee for the ilusion of having safety and freedom

Tzili

Alright. So a quick update. The sellers agreed a 5k pounds reduction.