Furniture included in sale

lookstraightahead

p00hsticks said:

lookstraightahead said:

Just decide what it's worth to you. They obviously don't want it so make sure anything you don't want is removed. 

Personally I would say I'm not paying but you can leave x, y and z if you don't want the hassle of moving it., but as you're a first time buyer you might be happy to pay.

In the OP's shoes I wouldn't be specifying individual items - either accept or reject the lot. From the landlord's point of view it'll be far easier to tell a house clearance company to just clear everything that to specify individual items to leave or take, especially if they are not personally on hand, so picking and choosing specific items is probably not going to go down well. 

I agree with the others about offering no more than a token payment of around £100 for the lot.

Fair enough I can see how that would work.

badger09

From the OP it sounds like this is an all or nothing deal. If everything is in decent condition, I would make a token offer say £150 (£100 sounds like the lowest figure you can think of). 

As others have said, you can pick up what you need from FB marketplace, charity shops & Freecycle. BUT the advantage is that it’s all already in situ, you can examine the condition & most importantly, you won’t have to collect it all or pay for delivery yourself. That convenience is definitely worth considering, & paying a little for, IMO. 

SadieO

badger09 said:

BUT the advantage is that it’s all already in situ, you can examine the condition & most importantly, you won’t have to collect it all or pay for delivery yourself. That convenience is definitely worth considering, & paying a little for, IMO. 

But the seller is also gaining the convenience of not having to move, store and advertise the furniture, deal with time-wasters who say they want it and then don't turn up etc, trying to find multiple buyers for individual items, or pay a clearance company to dispose of the lot...

Which is why I suggested £zero - the convenience of the arrangement benefits the house buyer and house seller equally, so why should the house buyer be out of pocket? 

p00hsticks

SadieO said:

badger09 said:

BUT the advantage is that it’s all already in situ, you can examine the condition & most importantly, you won’t have to collect it all or pay for delivery yourself. That convenience is definitely worth considering, & paying a little for, IMO. 

why should the house buyer be out of pocket? 

The house buyer is hardly out of pocket if they offer a small payment - in exchange they've got a house full of furniture, delivered and assembled.

Beth096

Thanks everyone for your advice, I went in at £100 and justified it by the quality of furniture/what I'd actually want and the seller has decided for that much he'll leave it for free which is great (other than a few tip runs).
Thankfully it's a flat so not too much furniture anyway

SadieO

Excellent! Thanks for updating us, hope everything else goes smoothly for you.

propertyhunter

Thank god you got it for free. My probate purchase left me with everything. We found a bowl worth £400 and some decent Ercol furniture worth a bob after restoration. The rest went to charity via the British Heart Foundation. They emailed saying it generated £280 in revenue for them. 

saajan_12

SadieO said:

badger09 said:

BUT the advantage is that it’s all already in situ, you can examine the condition & most importantly, you won’t have to collect it all or pay for delivery yourself. That convenience is definitely worth considering, & paying a little for, IMO. 

But the seller is also gaining the convenience of not having to move, store and advertise the furniture, deal with time-wasters who say they want it and then don't turn up etc, trying to find multiple buyers for individual items, or pay a clearance company to dispose of the lot...

Which is why I suggested £zero - the convenience of the arrangement benefits the house buyer and house seller equally, so why should the house buyer be out of pocket? 

 Because they both benefit from the convenience, but the buyer also saves on the second hand cost (eg from a charity shop). The seller might have to dispose, or might get some money by selling online, so would also lose out on that. 

However that's all theoretically, glad its worked out for OP.