Is Japanese knotweed a reason to pull out?

aoleks

japanese knotweed around a house or a maisonette (anything that's only yours and is on the ground floor) would be a huge no straight away, regardless of price. some people will tell you it's all overreacting, others will have had their lives destroyed by that plant.

a flat is different, foundations are different and it won't affect you directly. if the price is good, go for it, especially if it's been eradicated (PS: it hasn't, it's dormant).

GDB2222

mark_cycling00 said:

In many countries, Himalayan knotweed is treated with the same fear as Japanese knotweed (iradicate otherwise can't sell property)

But in the UK people are blissfully unaware and it's in loads of gardens and not part of any house buying process 

Knotweeds can be eradicated and also not cause damage. 

A suspect that a leasehold block would have a managing agent who would have obtained a decent company to do the eradication, and will do same if anyone ever notices it again.

Is that the same as Himalayan Balsam? 

One advantage of being in a block of flats is that the cost of eradication is split between all the flats, so may not be all that much per flat.

diystarter7

aoleks said:

japanese knotweed around a house or a maisonette (anything that's only yours and is on the ground floor) would be a huge no straight away, regardless of price. some people will tell you it's all overreacting, others will have had their lives destroyed by that plant.

a flat is different, foundations are different and it won't affect you directly. if the price is good, go for it, especially if it's been eradicated (PS: it hasn't, it's dormant).

Hi

A polite heads up. If there were problems again and the history, it is linked to the lease, service charges, EG, more JK, more treatment and if outside the gurantee or company that gave the cert folded and no insurance backed  gurantee, there would be costs. These costs would come from all of the leaseholders, pro-rata to their service charges.

Thnaks

babyblade41

I think a few people get panicked just as much about Asbestos as they do of JK.

Check the guarantee and all should be fine .

This time of year it's pretty dormant & plenty of companies offer their services . It wouldn't put me off at all if everything else is all what you want from a home

diystarter7

babyblade41 said:

I think a few people get panicked just as much about Asbestos as they do of JK.

Check the guarantee and all should be fine .

This time of year it's pretty dormant & plenty of companies offer their services . It wouldn't put me off at all if everything else is all what you want from a home

The highlighted bit, "check the guarantee" for what?

Doozergirl

tooldle said:

Japanese Knotweed is not the threat it was once rumoured to be. https://www.rics.org/content/dam/ricsglobal/documents/standards/Japanese%20knotweed_October%202022.pdf

The most valuable post that most people have ignored for their own outdated opinions.    This is the official RICS framework on JKW - anyone who values a property on behalf of a mortgage company will be a RICS chartered surveyor and is subject to this guidance.  It's been in circulation for around three years now - it was introduced to me before then. 

Japanese Knotweed is not considered such a problem, a lot of what it's rumoured to do never happens and it's been deemed no worse than many shrubs that people would't give a second thought to.  o


My concern would be the office conversion and the quality of that conversion, given that many are carried out under permitted development and subsequently have lower standards 

Doozergirl

diystarter7 said:

babyblade41 said:

I think a few people get panicked just as much about Asbestos as they do of JK.

Check the guarantee and all should be fine .

This time of year it's pretty dormant & plenty of companies offer their services . It wouldn't put me off at all if everything else is all what you want from a home

The highlighted bit, "check the guarantee" for what?

That it's insurance backed. 

And read the RICS framework at post #4, which is what you should be doing if you want to post prolifically on Japanese Knotweed.  

GDB2222

The RICS are definitely saying that the problem is exaggerated. But they also say:

It is acknowledged that currently the presence of Japanese knotweed may be a significant impediment to the sale and purchase of a property, and it can affect both value and saleability.

If the public perception of JKW means that affected properties have a lower value, the valuer cannot ignore that, even if he and the RICS think the public may have got it wrong. 

As thing’s currently stand, it may well not be necessary to pay full price for an affected property.

Doozergirl

GDB2222 said:

The RICS are definitely saying that the problem is exaggerated. But they also say:

It is acknowledged that currently the presence of Japanese knotweed may be a significant impediment to the sale and purchase of a property, and it can affect both value and saleability.

If the public perception of JKW means that affected properties have a lower value, the valuer cannot ignore that, even if he and the RICS think the public may have got it wrong. 

As thing’s currently stand, it may well not be necessary to pay full price for an affected property.

You're picking and choosing words!  The phrase you've quoted is taken from a section setting the scene and outlining the largely incorrect perception that they are trying to change with the new standards in the document. 

I know you've also acknowledged that the problem is exaggerated, but the rest of that paragraph is also really important:  

This effect may be present irrespective of whether the Japanese knotweed is close to the dwelling, at the bottom of a long garden or actually damaging ancillary features. It is often the mere presence of the Japanese knotweed that is regarded as the problem, while any damaging effects are secondary.

Note also that it references 'ancillary features' being damaged, not homes.  JKW does not eat through concrete and does not undermine significant structures like houses.  Even when it does affect features, it's often because there was already a problem with a lack of maintenance and it's not the JKW that is the underlying cause.   

The OP has already said it's a cheap property, I'm trying to point out that it may well not be the reason, given that the outbreak was "eradicated" six years ago and it's highly unlikely that there is even a plant there. 

"Office Conversion" is the red flag for me.  

There are outright untruths out there about JKW.  Someone's taken an opportunity early on this thread to balance that argument and it was largely ignored.  It would be nice if people would point out things from the 46 pages of sense that has been linked to, rather than continuing to post the things they think they know.  

user1977

GDB2222 said:

The RICS are definitely saying that the problem is exaggerated. But they also say:

It is acknowledged that currently the presence of Japanese knotweed may be a significant impediment to the sale and purchase of a property, and it can affect both value and saleability.

If the public perception of JKW means that affected properties have a lower value, the valuer cannot ignore that, even if he and the RICS think the public may have got it wrong. 

As thing’s currently stand, it may well not be necessary to pay full price for an affected property.

Does "presence" include "six years ago, before the JK was cleared up and the property redeveloped"?