Would you give a dubious vendor a second chance?

giantkatie

Doozergirl wrote: »

If you're confident you have good people to do the work and you can negotiate them doing it before you buy, there isn't any more risk with this house than any other. Any house can hide problems. You're in a position of understanding these.

'Preservations' contractor makes me feel a bit nervous though. Same people that surveyed the issue? Do they sell chemical damp proofing? Those people shouldn't be allowed near Victorian properties.

Any issues with mortgage lenders and dry rot?

We sought a second opinion from a preservations specialist that we trust. He did not carry out the original survey (the vendor interfered in this and used one of his associates without our consent - like I said, dubious). Our guy's approach would be to replace / renew damaged timbers, cornicing and plaster and restore to original condition. Costly but doable. The vendor wanted to replace the wet plaster then use a dehumidifier and a fungicidal spray - hence the reason we walked.

We have a mortgage in place so would need to check this change in circumstances out with our lender.

AdrianC

Then negotiate the price down, or walk.

SmashedAvacado

The seller is going to have to pay to fix it whether you buy it (through giving you a discount) or you dont buy it. Now it sounds like they have come to terms with that, you need to work out the cost, add a bit to the cost for the hassle factor and lower your offer.

davidmcn

giantkatie wrote: »

We have a mortgage in place so would need to check this change in circumstances out with our lender.

Lender won't have a problem if it's given a clean bill of health by a surveyor.

ACG

I would probably ask them to pay for a few reports at their expense... and then pull out completely.

They could have financially ruined you. They have not only lied, they have gone out of their way to cover up the lies. Do you really want to be taking someone like that to court for any other potential problems? Do you even want to be dealing with someone like that?

If the solicitor has emailed you I would probably send some laughing gif as a reply - I am sure you can find some good ones on google.

ReadingTim

Obviously trust is key, but just to balance things out...

1 - nearly every vendor wants to present their property in a good light when selling. So, perhaps fills some cracks in here, do a little painting there, generally spruce the place up a bit. Is that concealing problems? Possibly. Would you do the same? Probably. There is such a thing as being too honest you know.

2 - If some issues were only discovered after specialist survey then it's unreasonable to assume the vendor would necessarily know about them to conceal them, or lie about the issue. That's why the specialist surveyor is the expert, and you're not. If you didn't spot them when you saw the place, why should the vendor have?

Everything is fixable at a cost, and it sounds like the vendor might be willing to negotiate over price. If the place is really that unique, walking away from it with an air of moral superiority over normal salesmanlike behaviour may risk cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Clutterfree

My worry would be what else have they “hidden”?

Davesnave

Clutterfree wrote: »

My worry would be what else have they “hidden”?

Are we talking bodies here, or what?

Buildings aren't that complex. If someone with the right skills and experience examines it thoroughly enough to find all the dry rot etc then it's likely there isn't much more that might be suddenly revealed.

The question now is more about the competence of the remedial contractors, the accuracy of their quote and whether the vendor will accept that, rather than some quick fix they'll possibly suggest.

Long way to go yet.

Personally, having bought from a vendor who was morally corrupt and in jail, I wouldn't be bothered about doing a deal if it was in my favour. What was it Michael Palin said in the Monty Python sketch, 'Blackmail?':

" Don't worry, we won't morally censure you; we just want the money!"

That would be about right.

ReadingTim

Clutterfree wrote: »

My worry would be what else have they “hidden”?

Isn't that the point of a survey though? What else did you think it was for?

giantkatie

ReadingTim wrote: »

Obviously trust is key, but just to balance things out...

If the place is really that unique, walking away from it with an air of moral superiority over normal salesmanlike behaviour may risk cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Thank you for the advice. I mostly agree. As for 'normal' salesmanlike behaviour - perhaps. Your 'moral superiority' statement however is a leap - we walked away with an air of relief that we hadn't been financially ruined by this. That we are even reconsidering negotiations hardly screams moral superiority. Wanting transparency is reasonable, in my opinion. But judge as you will.