Is this common practice? Notification of damage to property post-offer

LEW82

I had an offer accepted on a house late June in a very popular seaside town in the South East.  On the 4th floor,  there was brown on the ceiling and the wall paper was falling down.  However, the estate agent reassured me that the roof had been repaired and produced a receipt from the seller for £13,500 and £1,500,dated March 2023, for roof repairs.  I was happy to accept the poor decorative state if the source of the problem had been fixed.  I was reassured that the roof had been repaired.

3 weeks post-offer there was a storm (the house is near the seafront) and the roof leaked again. The seller didn't tell me directly nor did the estate agent.  They didn't invite me to inspect the damage.   They instead told my conveyancer.   My conveyancer sent an email to me about 'further leakages' with a new receipt attached for £1,500  repairs that the seller had done and paid for in June 2023.   

I feel pretty stupid, but I assumed that the 'further leakages' related to March 2023 because the receipt looked exactly the same, other than a tiny date which said 2nd June. It was also buried at the bottom of the documents that they passed on electronically and difficult to notice at first.  It took me three weeks to get to speed with the issue, even though by nature I am quite a careful person when it comes to reading paperwork.

The seller disclosed insurance claims relating to the roof every 5 years (storm damage). I assumed that the 'further damage' related to what happened in March, it was 'further damage' from the disclosed insurance claims.  My conveyancer did not say 'further damage' from which date and this confused me.   

Anyway, I nearly missed this further damage altogether due to an unclear message.  It would have been helpful to talk to the roofer, given a further opportunity to inspect the house and perhaps even ask for my opinion about how I wanted to proceed (e.g. price reduction with a view to replacing the roof).  Is this common practice - not to call the buyer (the estate agent) when the house is damaged?  I think that it is pretty off not being more direct about it.  Perhaps not legally, but morally at least.   Not being upfront has just made me consider pulling out.  It's a really expensive house and top of my budget - paid for with savings, inheritances.  I don't have a spare £1500 here and there from my salary every time the roof leaks.  I had been reassured that it had been fixed. 

I feel bad about (possibly) pulling out but the electrics neither have the correct certification.  Apparently, most people don't mind and just accept an indemnity insurance policy against the local authority taking action.   That's not a lot of use if they set alight because they are unsafe/it spreads to next door.   The boiler has also not been replaced since 1998 (when the buyer moved in).  I am starting to worry this house has not been maintained well at all, which I knew up to a point but the full extent is starting to cause me anxiety and a sick feeling in my stomach.

This is a really expensive area of the South which is why I settled for the issues given the competition for houses, I'd be mortgage free where I grew up in Yorkshire.  The competition for houses (along with being given 24 hours to decide) had an impact on my offer. 

anselld

You can't be much more "up front" than informing your Solicitor.  The Vendor has done the correct thing by doing so and if you have a dispute with anyone it is your Solicitor for not communicating clearly to you.  You are realising this is an older property in need of updating, that is also not the Vendor's fault as it should have been apparent on viewing.

LEW82

I see your point.  The bottom two floors have been renovated to a high standard (£55,000 spent on one floor). An unqualified electrician did the work and I don't want to pull the new kitchen/shower room apart for inspection/to rewire.   The 4th floor does need decorating.   I have put money aside for a new boiler etc.   I had an assurance that the roof had been fully repaired and it obviously hasn't.  I agree though the seller would have reason to full annoyed if I pulled out.  I just wish that the estate agent could have picked up the phone when the damage occurred.

Mstty

Seaside town houses do suffer a bit more from the salt air and depending on location heavy winds.

This shouldn't be a surprise to you, what is your contingency budget for the next 5 years maintenance. Without seeing it I would put £20k away just incase earning interest and if it isn't used then great.

A 25 year old boiler isn't the end of the world either. Cheap to replace or it may still be working efficiently enough.

Electrics, again it's an old building you must have factored that in the offer?

Slinky

Presumably you haven't yet exchanged? I would be thinking about going in with a qualified roofer and getting them to have a look at it to find out what's going on.  If it's making you feel ill, don't proceed until you get reassurance otherwise it's only going to make that feeling get worse. Trust your gut in this regard.

user1977

The nature of roof leaks means it isn't always obvious on the first attempt where it's coming from (water gets in, travels horizontally, drips down somewhere else, etc) so more than one visit isn't necessarily noteworthy. Though of course it's no guarantee that the problem has now been properly resolved.

If you want comfort about what state the electrics are currently in, you get your own person in to inspect them rather than rely on the vendor's paperwork.

And nothing wrong with having a 25 year old boiler if it still works.

FreeBear

Mstty said: A 25 year old boiler isn't the end of the world either. Cheap to replace or it may still be working efficiently enough.

A 25 y.o. boiler, probably only 50-60% efficient. Spares will be increasingly difficult to get hold of should it break down. On the plus side, it is likely that there is little inside to actually go wrong. A new boiler will be 85-98% efficient depending on how low a temperature you can run the heating at (worth fitting larger radiators to help with that).

If the current location of the boiler meets the requirements of today's regs, (placement of flue in relation to door/window openings being the main one), the cost of fitting a new one shouldn't be that expensive. Budget £2-3K depending on size & make. Should the boiler need to be relocated, that will bump the cost up considerably - I had been getting quotes of £4.5K up to £8K to replace an even older back boiler.

LEW82

Thanks for the sensible replies.  The electrics are actually new and part of a renovation that cost £55,000.   They wouldn't be illegal if they were the old ones.  It's because they are new and done by an unqualified person without the right certificate required post-2005 that caused the issue.   I agree though.  Very sensible replies. It's a stressful process.  The boiler isn't really an issue and I'd factored it into the offer.  I was just starting to have a panic because it is such a major life event buying a house.

Teapot55

If you haven’t much spare cash for stuff going wrong in the near future it is a dilemma. 

Do the electrics have a recent safety certificate? Forty year old electrics can sometimes develop dangerous faults. 

Has the roof got proper lead work on the joins or just sand & cement that will crack if there’s frost? Will the gutters cope with heavy rain? Are there signs of damp on the outside walls of the top storey that would indicate rainwater getting in?

Did you get a survey done by the way?

LEW82

Hi, it's been rewired as part of a renovation.  They are new electrics. 2018.   I can leave £25,000 as I am mainly a cash buyer.   Survey booked next week.

Gutters have been replaced, yes.   Roof is not lead I don't think. Yes, it's rain water due to ongoing leaks.  A lot of money has been put into repairing it and they showed the paperwork to the top 3 offerees of which I was one.  When so much money as been spent already,  it's bound to concern.  I don't know much much a surveyor can see and do other than see the damp.   They don't go on the roof.  Advice appreciated.

Mortgage provider doesn't seem to have paid much attention - I will own 85% in cash.   I wonder if they see little risk on their behalf.

CSI_Yorkshire

LEW82 said:

Mortgage provider doesn't seem to have paid much attention - I will own 85% in cash.   I wonder if they see little risk on their behalf.

That would make sense, if repossessed they would be able to get their 15% back even if it was a burnt-out wreck.