When and who should inform me of a property defect.

Simby

adli82 wrote: »

The sink fund has been put in place as a result of the repairs being needed, so over the last 3 years the leaseholders have been billed around 6k for this each ontop of the standard service charges.



I have requested for my solicitor to get answers for a whole range of questions relating to it, I was just wondering if the Seller or Estate egent had a duty to inform me about the repairs before getting to this stage. Thanks

So only 2k per year (6k over 3 years) does not sound excessive , it sounds like a prudent approach... so there is a fund there to pay for repairs..I.e a savings scheme for want of a better term...

If 2k per year is excessive and an issue for you I would suggest leasehold may not be for you.., but if you buy a house and it needs a new roof eventually you would have to pay the full cost... with an apartment you only have to pay your share.. which can be through a sink fund or alternatively an invoice when the repair is done.

Maybe owning property is not for you op, if you see a sinkfund as an issue.

Doozergirl

This seems a better situation to me than one where there is no sinking fund and no one checks the roof until it starts leaking, so everyone ends up with a massive bill.

The seems to be a responsible freeholder, anticipating work, because if the roof needed replacing that badly, it would have to be done straight away.

No news often isn't good news.

adli82

Simby wrote: »

So only 2k per year (6k over 3 years) does not sound excessive , it sounds like a prudent approach... so there is a fund there to pay for repairs..I.e a savings scheme for want of a better term...

If 2k per year is excessive and an issue for you I would suggest leasehold may not be for you.., but if you buy a house and it needs a new roof eventually you would have to pay the full cost... with an apartment you only have to pay your share.. which can be through a sink fund or alternatively an invoice when the repair is done.

Maybe owning property is not for you op, if you see a sinkfund as an issue.

Well the cost was spread an extra £1500 £3500 and an extra £1500 on top of the normal £1050, the smaller amounts of the two being more affordable.


I do find it strange when a few of the posts have said 6k is not a lot of money, as i dont know many people regardless of whether they rent or buy that would be able to brush off paying out £3500 or have it spare in the first place.


I agree a sink fund is a good idea, but would i want to get involved in buying a property which is in the process of building one up, well depending on how much money is still needed probably not.



I get that any property can need a roof fixing, and i probably went off the point too much. I was trying to say that its a headache i would have avoided had the estate agent told me of the issues. There was a previous seller that pulled out earlier in the year also (for what reason im unsure), but if it was roof repair issues then i should have been told.


Tanks

G_M

Given a choice between 2 identical blocks of flats, one where there is a sinking fund being built up and a freeholder keeping a weather eye on the roof, and the other where there's no sinking fund and the freeholder is absent, dis-interested or ignoring maintenance, I know which one I'd buy!

AdrianC

adli82 wrote: »

I do find it strange when a few of the posts have said 6k is not a lot of money, as i dont know many people regardless of whether they rent or buy that would be able to brush off paying out £3500 or have it spare in the first place.

I think home ownership is going to come as a shock to you... If you think having a £6k bill spread over three years is bad, just don't even think about buying a freehold house - because ain't nobody but Mr Barclaycard spreading the payments then...

eddddy

adli82 wrote: »

I was trying to say that its a headache i would have avoided had the estate agent told me of the issues. There was a previous seller that pulled out earlier in the year also (for what reason im unsure), but if it was roof repair issues then i should have been told.

As I said above, the EA should really have asked the seller about planned building repairs, and made you aware at the earliest opportunity - but there's scope for argument over that.


BUT... if the EA oversaw a previous sale which fell through because of roof repair issues, there is no doubt that would be a 'material information'.

The law requires the EA to tell you 'material information' at an appropriate time (i.e. before you pay out legal fees etc).

If the EA didn't disclose 'material information', the Property Ombudsman is likely to tell the EA to pay you compensation to cover your aborted purchase costs.

(That assumes that the EA is a member of the Property Ombudsman scheme, but most are. And you would have to follow their complaints process.)

ethank

adli82 wrote: »

The issue I have at the moment is that I feel someone should have disclosed this information before I paid my solicitor and survey fees. This is clearly a known defect, as the seller has even said so in the report as to why the service charges have been higher.

The rule when buying a property is caveat emptor - which means Let the Buyer beware. As a buyer you are responsible for checking the quality and suitability of goods before a purchase is made. There is no requirement in law for you to be informed of any defects. That is why you appoint a surveyor, and a solicitor to advise you.

If you ask a question of the buyer, then they cannot withhold the information to you, but they do not need to disclose anything if you don't.

eddddy

ethank wrote: »

The rule when buying a property is caveat emptor - which means Let the Buyer beware. As a buyer you are responsible for checking the quality and suitability of goods before a purchase is made. There is no requirement in law for you to be informed of any defects.

Your information is out-of-date. The law changed in 2013.

Here are a couple of references:

Jeremy Raj, a partner in residential property at law firm Wedlake Bell, said: "Gone is the principle of caveat emptor, or buyer beware. This puts the onus on the buyer to uncover any potential problems.

"The law in this area is very clear – if the seller or the agent has any information that is likely to have an impact on the value of a property or the buyer's enjoyment of the property, they must disclose it."

Link: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/house-prices/10864514/Failed-property-survey-Now-sellers-must-disclose-all.html

Also:

In the past, estate agents and sellers have worked around the idea of ‘caveat emptor’, also known as ‘buyer beware’. This meant that the responsibility for finding out issues with the property was down to the buyer – if they didn’t ask, you didn’t have to tell. If something turned up after they bought the property, well, they should have asked, shouldn’t they?

However, since 2013, the description and sale of property has come under the CPR (Consumer Protection Against Unfair Trading Regulations). This means that if you don’t disclose something that could legitimately affect your buyer’s decision, you could be prosecuted.

Link: https://www.reallymoving.com/conveyancing/guides/what-do-i-have-to-disclose

csgohan4

eddddy wrote: »

Your information is out-of-date. The law changed in 2013.

Here are a couple of references:




Also:

What if the EA never asked info from the seller and relied on the seller giving info for that very reason. Also they are under no obligation to ask why the sale fell through, they just market it for the seller.


They may not ask and not keep a email/paper trail for the reason you have outlined. It really isn't that difficult to absolve the EA of any wrong doing if their smart about it, ultimately it's the seller's house and they are the ones responsible.


Another reason why not to rely on EA/vendor and do your diligence with a good solicitor


I wouldn't say the EA totally at fault and indeed the OP has made his money's worth from the solicitor picking this up now, rather when exchanged/ completed.

eddddy

csgohan4 wrote: »

What if the EA never asked info from the seller and relied on the seller giving info for that very reason. Also they are under no obligation to ask why the sale fell through, they just market it for the seller.

The EA has a duty to ask.

That's why the NAEA (National Association of Estate Agents) are trialling 'Property Information Questionnaires' - to help EAs to ask all the questions that they should be asking.

The plan is that EAs will ask sellers to fill them in, before they start marketing:
https://www.naea.co.uk/media/1011000/property-information-questionnaire-freehold.pdf
https://www.naea.co.uk/media/1045931/property-information-questionnaire-leasehold.pdf


One specific question is:

Have there been any failed purchase transactions on the property
within the last 12 months? If ‘Yes’ please provide details.

csgohan4 wrote: »

They may not ask and not keep a email/paper trail for the reason you have outlined. It really isn't that difficult to absolve the EA of any wrong doing if their smart about it, ultimately it's the seller's house and they are the ones responsible.

I think the law and the property ombudsman's enforcement is going to be tougher and more vigorous than you imagine.

In the following case, an EA was ordered to pay £25,000 compensation, for failing to disclose information about sea defences.

That's not information from any email / paper trail.

See: https://www.tpos.co.uk/news-media-and-press-releases/case-studies/item/annual-report-omission-of-the-truth-shatters-buyers-dream