Selling a flat with issues

M24

I bought my flat in December 2021, a quirky part-basement 1 bed flat in a very good location in Bristol. The building is old, 1800s but when I got the survey done they didn't pick up on any serious looming issues. 

Fast forward to October 2022 - we had a mass amount of rainfall and in the middle of the night (like it usually is) my bedroom was flooded. Plumbers couldn't work out what was wrong but we turned to the roof as the top flat (I am groundfloor) was having issues too. 

We repaired the roof, but my issue is still persisting. I had a leak detector come in today and basically delivered the worst news imaginable to me right now - the bedroom (which is in the part-basement area) has not been waterproofed correctly and so when we get heavy rainfall it starts to seep in.

I've been given a rough quote of £15 000 to fix this which is a huge amount of money that I can't really afford right now. I wanted to find out from here if anyone has had any experience selling a home with issues known? I know that I can sell it 'as is', but I don't know how easy it is to do that. It's worth reiterating the decent location that the flat is in. 

Secondly, I would like to try find out if the seller (who still owns two flats in the building) could be held liable for this in some way? From my experiences with him in the last 18 months it is clear that he is a cheap and dishonest man who has pulled the wool over my eyes (and the other owners in this building) and has not been maintaining this old building and has been doing all renovations and refurbishments on the cheap. I can't afford a lawyer right now, and would like to know that I'd have a solid case before approaching one. 

I'm at wits end, I am worn out, deeply upset and I just don't know what to do next. Any advice would be hugely appreciated. Thank you in advance.

BJV

So sorry, not having a basement tanked properly is horrible. It is a messy nasty job. If it has not been tanked I am amazed that it has taken this long to show issues.

For what it is worth 15k to repair sounds like a good price. 

So ok, firstly what type of survey did you have?  was it a full structural? Any major damp issues should of been picked up.

Ref buying the flat was it from an auction? If so sorry it is buyer beware?

Ref solicitors? on the contracts you got to sign what did the seller say to the comments regarding the condition of the flat? E.g did he say that it had been tanked?

Ref selling? Yes, you can nothing is stopping you but you will have to answer questions on the condition, no matter if you sell via an EA or auction and this could affect the price.

It might be worth finding out how much it is worth now? Prices have changed and in some areas have gone down. So speak to an EA to get an idea. Fingers crossed if you decide to go down the route of selling you might not have lost anything ?

Sorry almost forgot, also get another damp specialist to come and have a look and give a second opinion, it might not be as bad as the 1st contractor said?

Hope this helps- 

slipthru

What does your lease say? As the problem is with the building is the cost not shared between all leaseholders? Instead of the full cost falling to you.

user1977

BJV said:

Ref buying the flat was it from an auction? If so sorry it is buyer beware?

Ref solicitors? on the contracts you got to sign what did the seller say to the comments regarding the condition of the flat? E.g did he say that it had been tanked?

It's buyer beware even if not an auction, unless the seller made a false answer to a specific enquiry. There won't have been a general one about "the condition of the flat". There's no obligation on them to point out problems, even if you could prove that they were aware of any.

AlexMac

Sympathies. As slip thru says, above, you might have some call on the freeholder. You don’t say who this is, but saying “we repaired the roof” is puzzling; who is “we”? is it a shared freehold? 

Usually, the lease or maybe the shared freehold’s Mem’&Arts (constitution) specifies who’s responsible for what. The best one I ever owned had a lease and constitution that specified that while roofs, windows an external decs were obviously shared, that structural damp was also down to the freeholder. So we all had to chip in!

Finally, you might have some call on the surveyors professional indemnity but that’s a long shot as I guess you didn’t commission a full survey; I never do!  

Anyway, good luck

M24

I didn’t think the other freeholders (yes it’s share of feedhold) would be willing to chip in as the issue doesn’t effect them but you are right it is a structural issue and we should all be liable 

jimbog

M24 said:

I didn’t think the other freeholders (yes it’s share of feedhold) would be willing to chip in as the issue doesn’t effect them but you are right it is a structural issue and we should all be liable 

If the roof leaked would only the top floor flat be expected to pay? All should share the cost

Alderbank

jimbog said:

M24 said:

I didn’t think the other freeholders (yes it’s share of feedhold) would be willing to chip in as the issue doesn’t effect them but you are right it is a structural issue and we should all be liable 

If the roof leaked would only the top floor flat be expected to pay? All should share the cost

It's not clear to me that the roof is the issue.

OP said '...the bedroom (which is in the part-basement area) has not been waterproofed correctly and so when we get heavy rainfall it starts to seep in.'

@BJV said,'...not having a basement tanked properly is horrible. It is a messy nasty job. If it has not been tanked I am amazed that it has taken this long to show issues.

If so, the water is entering horizontally as the surrounding water table rises.

jimbog

Alderbank said:

jimbog said:

M24 said:

I didn’t think the other freeholders (yes it’s share of feedhold) would be willing to chip in as the issue doesn’t effect them but you are right it is a structural issue and we should all be liable 

If the roof leaked would only the top floor flat be expected to pay? All should share the cost

It's not clear to me that the roof is the issue.

OP said '...the bedroom (which is in the part-basement area) has not been waterproofed correctly and so when we get heavy rainfall it starts to seep in.'

@BJV said,'...not having a basement tanked properly is horrible. It is a messy nasty job. If it has not been tanked I am amazed that it has taken this long to show issues.

If so, the water is entering horizontally as the surrounding water table rises.

Sorry, my point was that all flats would be responsible for the repair to the tanking in much the same way that all flats would be responsible for covering the cost of a leaking roof

ThisIsWeird

user1977 said:

It's buyer beware even if not an auction... There's no obligation on them to point out problems, even if you could prove that they were aware of any.

I thought that too, until today when I read an article in the Telegraph (forgive me...).
There is seemingly a legal requirement to disclose an issue that could materially affect the value of a property*. So, if you could demonstrate that the seller knew it had flooded before, or that the work had not been done correctly so would very likely lead to serious issues, then you could have a claim.
I'd suggest, tho', that your chances of success in this case is minimal - unless, say, it flooded previously. But it does also mean that you could be found actionable should you try selling it in dry summer with no disclosure!
I agree with what has been said by others - check the terms of your leasehold, and see what's covered by the 'buildings' aspect. I suspect it'll include walls as being a shared matter, just as with the roof. It's not a case of the other LH's being happy or willing. 
Hasn't a sink fund been built up at all?

* The actual issue in the article concerned an unpleasant history of a house - the previous owner had been murdered in it. The current owner wasn't concerned, but accepts they got it cheaper due to this. 15 years on, they wish to sell. Yes, they should disclose this, or they'd leave themselves very open to a legal challenge once the new owners found out. There is a legal precedent in law.

pinkshoes

M24 said:

Secondly, I would like to try find out if the seller (who still owns two flats in the building) could be held liable for this in some way? From my experiences with him in the last 18 months it is clear that he is a cheap and dishonest man who has pulled the wool over my eyes (and the other owners in this building) and has not been maintaining this old building and has been doing all renovations and refurbishments on the cheap. I can't afford a lawyer right now, and would like to know that I'd have a solid case before approaching one. 

You'd need to prove that the flat has previously flooded and the seller lied about this on the SPIF that they filled in when selling.

As this is an issue with the BUILDING and not the flat itself, then it should be the freeholder Buildings Insurance that should be paying for this work. No different to having a roof or other structural issue that could affect the entire building. If the buildings insurance doesn't cover it, then the sinking fund should be used (so paid for by all the leasehold flats).

How many flats are in the building?