Fire in neighbouring property - is vendor telling porkies?

kissprudence

I had an offer accepted two weeks ago on a house that ticked all our boxes, after a four month search since becoming proceedable. It's a late Victorian mid-terrace. A few days ago, I heard on the local grapevine that a neighbouring property suffered a fire about ten years ago in one of the attic bedrooms. I've offered on number 17, the fire was at 19 and it was the previous owners of 21 who are a friend of a friend and how I heard about the fire at 19. The fire wasn't small - 19 had to have a new roof and 21 had to move out for several months due to smoke damage.

I rang the EA, explained about what I had heard and said I would need a full structural survey to understand the extent of the damage to 17. I asked her to phone the vendor and for him to tell me the extent of the fire damage to the house and what works he has had done since (the family has lived there for fifteen years). I stressed that I didn't want any nasty surprises and that I would find out the extent of the damage on the structural survey anyway so it would save everyone a lot of time, money and effort now if I knew the effect of the fire on 17. The response back was "the fire was really frightening but we were extremely lucky that day, the wind was blowing strongly in the other direction and there was no damage to our house". So, what do I do with that?! I suppose it could be true or it could be utter rubbish with a vendor trying to cover their back in the hope I won't back out of the purchase. 

The friend who informed me about the fire said I need to cut my losses and walk away now, saying she would never buy a house which may have potential fire damage. Conversely, I spoke to a friend who used to work in property law who didn't bat an eyelid and said that a structural survey will pick up the extent of any damage and I should make my decision based on the findings of that. 

The house is on a hill and every second house is raised up a good couple of feet higher than its neighbour. From a crude eyeball of the outside of the property, it looks like there is possibly an exterior wall separating 17 and 19 because 19 sits a couple of feet higher than 17. Because of the height difference, they don't share a roof either. I'm clutching at straws here for an explanation as to how 21 needed to move out and be temporarily housed because the damage to their property was so bad but 17 was apparently unscathed. 

My gut is telling me to proceed with the survey and then make a decision. I've pulled out of a purchase before due to a bad survey and I'm not afraid to do it again. We viewed 10 houses over four months (looking at RightMove everyday!) and this is the only one that we got 'the feeling' for instantly and the only one we offered on. It was on the market two days when I offered on it and it's probably our forever home. What would others be tempted to do?     

UnderOffer

Do the survey then make your decision, it may well have not touched No.17, and there could be no evidence and the surveyor is perfectly happy with what they assessed, I’d let the surveyor know in advance of their visit about your concerns. 

No.21 stated it was smoke damage to their property, which is why they moved out. 

AdrianC

17 is lower than 19, with a wall between.
19 shares a roof and attic with 21.
The wind was blowing from 17->19->21.

19 had an attic fire.
Yes, of course 21 is going to be at far higher risk than 17. It doesn't seem a great surprise at all to me that 17 could have been unscathed. Was the entire roof of 19 gutted? Or was the fire nearer the dividing wall between 19 and 21?

If it was 10yrs ago, have you looked at Streetview and seen if there's historic shots that might show the work? Click the clock icon at the bottom of the top-right box. Have you seen whether there's anything in local papers from the time?

By all means, make sure the surveyor looks at the roof timbers, but don't over think it... Have you been into the loft yourself yet?

Jeepers_Creepers

I presume you have this response "the fire was really frightening but we were extremely lucky that day, the wind was blowing strongly in the other direction and there was no damage to our house" in writing? In which case I personally wouldn't annoy them any more about this - that's a pretty definitive response.

What I would ask the surveyor to check, tho', is that there are internal block/brick 'fire' walls separating the houses in the loft so there's no risk of fire spreading easily from one house to the other.  I'm guessing there is, since they have a bedroom up there? What do you have in your loft space? 

davidmcn

If all the other neighbour suffered was smoke damage, why are you convinced that there was likely to be more serious damage to "your" house? Even if there had been damage why would it not have been fixed at the time, given it would have been fully insured?

Falafels

If it was ten years ago, and the property hadn't been damaged, I'm not surprised the vendor didn't think to mention it. They don't share a roof with No.19, and there's also nothing to suggest they needed remedial works, either, even though the adjoining property at No.21 did. It was also smoke damage rather than fire damage to No.21 in the first place - therefore cosmetic rather than structural. It's perfectly feasible that a strong wind would significantly affect the direction of flow of the fire.

Why on earth does your friend think there's a problem? Are they actually qualified to make a judgment like this?

Having a full structural survey is a good idea in any case, but if you're still worried about it then mention it to the surveyor in advance.

As to what I'd do, I'd say something along the lines of 'Yeah, whatever...' and carry on with the purchase.

kissprudence

AdrianC said:

17 is lower than 19, with a wall between.
19 shares a roof and attic with 21.
The wind was blowing from 17->19->21.

19 had an attic fire.
Yes, of course 21 is going to be at far higher risk than 17. It doesn't seem a great surprise at all to me that 17 could have been unscathed. Was the entire roof of 19 gutted? Or was the fire nearer the dividing wall between 19 and 21?

If it was 10yrs ago, have you looked at Streetview and seen if there's historic shots that might show the work? Click the clock icon at the bottom of the top-right box. Have you seen whether there's anything in local papers from the time?

By all means, make sure the surveyor looks at the roof timbers, but don't over think it... Have you been into the loft yourself yet?

The only thing I can find from the local papers is that the owner of 19 was taken to hospital with smoke inhalation but no-one else was injured. 
Yes, the loft space is a converted dormer bedroom so we were up there on our viewing.

kissprudence

Jeepers_Creepers said:

I presume you have this response "the fire was really frightening but we were extremely lucky that day, the wind was blowing strongly in the other direction and there was no damage to our house" in writing? In which case I personally wouldn't annoy them any more about this - that's a pretty definitive response.

What I would ask the surveyor to check, tho', is that there are internal block/brick 'fire' walls separating the houses in the loft so there's no risk of fire spreading easily from one house to the other.  I'm guessing there is, since they have a bedroom up there? What do you have in your loft space? 

I haven't got it in writing at this stage. My friend who used to work in property law said that my solicitor can seek this statement in writing during the conveyancing process. 

theoretica

Get the survey and ask specifically about this but expect it to be fine. If there had been structural damage from the fire it would surely have been covered by insurance, and sorted at the time, not ignored to be a problem more than 10 years in the future.

kissprudence

davidmcn said:

If all the other neighbour suffered was smoke damage, why are you convinced that there was likely to be more serious damage to "your" house? Even if there had been damage why would it not have been fixed at the time, given it would have been fully insured?

How can we assume the house was fully insured? How can we assume that any damage was fixed at the time?   

AdrianC

kissprudence said:

Yes, the loft space is a converted dormer bedroom so we were up there on our viewing.

But that conversion's going to hide the actual timbers. Is there access to them, perhaps via unfinished eaves storage?

There's nothing your surveyor can see that you can't. He can't see through plasterboard, and he certainly can't remove it.