Full land search not available in Hackney, should I put down a new offer?

user1977

BraveLuna said:

user1977 said:

I can't see that the appropriate level for any discount ought to be more than what an indemnity policy costs. And given such policies typically cost peanuts, that indicates the tiny level of risk involved.

Getting an insurance does not protect against knowing that the property lose value because of an issue that would have been disclosed in the full search. Plus you'd still have the hassle to deal with the admin on an insurance, should you actually claim it. It's very different from knowing that there are no issues at all.

Well if you seem so sure about this, why are you asking us?

How much of a discount do you think it's worth? Please show your working.

propertyrental

The property is in an area where there is a risk of flooding which may affect future saleability and there may be insurance issues.
Future saleability may be affected because the property is above a restaurant. Future saleability may be affected because of adverse locational factors: adjacent non-residential uses and a busy road

These are far more serious issues. Personally I wouldn't  proceed because of these.

AskAsk

propertyrental said:

The property is in an area where there is a risk of flooding which may affect future saleability and there may be insurance issues.
Future saleability may be affected because the property is above a restaurant. Future saleability may be affected because of adverse locational factors: adjacent non-residential uses and a busy road

These are far more serious issues. Personally I wouldn't  proceed because of these.

Yes, I would agree!  Depends on how cheap the property is, but a property above a restaurant will be expensive to insure because of the fire risk from the restaurant.

With regard to flooding, I am not aware of ever having floods in Hackney and I had lived there since I was a kid and my father still lives there!  So unless the property is next to water of some sort, this may just be extreme caution.  Find out how many floods has taken place in the last 10 years in the area.

Check the block building insurance and see how much of your service charge is in respect of building insurance.

BraveLuna

AskAsk said:

propertyrental said:

The property is in an area where there is a risk of flooding which may affect future saleability and there may be insurance issues.
Future saleability may be affected because the property is above a restaurant. Future saleability may be affected because of adverse locational factors: adjacent non-residential uses and a busy road

These are far more serious issues. Personally I wouldn't  proceed because of these.

Yes, I would agree!  Depends on how cheap the property is, but a property above a restaurant will be expensive to insure because of the fire risk from the restaurant.

With regard to flooding, I am not aware of ever having floods in Hackney and I had lived there since I was a kid and my father still lives there!  So unless the property is next to water of some sort, this may just be extreme caution.  Find out how many floods has taken place in the last 10 years in the area.

Check the block building insurance and see how much of your service charge is in respect of building insurance.

I also have not heard of any flooding in Hackney. But I put the postcode on the flood risk gov website and it gave me this.

• high risk of surface water flooding
• very low risk of flooding from rivers and the sea
  
  

  Surface water - High risk of flooding

  How likely a flood is:

  High risk means that this area has a chance of flooding of greater than 3.3% each year.

AskAsk

BraveLuna said:

AskAsk said:

propertyrental said:

The property is in an area where there is a risk of flooding which may affect future saleability and there may be insurance issues.
Future saleability may be affected because the property is above a restaurant. Future saleability may be affected because of adverse locational factors: adjacent non-residential uses and a busy road

These are far more serious issues. Personally I wouldn't  proceed because of these.

Yes, I would agree!  Depends on how cheap the property is, but a property above a restaurant will be expensive to insure because of the fire risk from the restaurant.

With regard to flooding, I am not aware of ever having floods in Hackney and I had lived there since I was a kid and my father still lives there!  So unless the property is next to water of some sort, this may just be extreme caution.  Find out how many floods has taken place in the last 10 years in the area.

Check the block building insurance and see how much of your service charge is in respect of building insurance.

I also have not heard of any flooding in Hackney. But I put the postcode on the flood risk gov website and it gave me this.

• high risk of surface water flooding
• very low risk of flooding from rivers and the sea
  
  

  Surface water - High risk of flooding

  How likely a flood is:

  High risk means that this area has a chance of flooding of greater than 3.3% each year.

Surface flooding is from sewers when there is heavy rain.  Don't remember Hackney having that sort of issue, so I don't think that is a huge worry.  Google flooding in that postcode and see if anything comes up, but you can also ask the vendors the question of whether there had been any surface flooding over the last 10 years, or since their ownership. 

The TA6 form, property information form, also asks the question.  The vendors would have answered it.  But you can ask the question again through your solicitor.

My friend bought a flat in Surrey, and the same thing came up in the searches.  He had lived there for 15 years and never had any surface flooding, so we didn't worry about it.

TA7 form, leasehold information form, will also have a fire risk assessment report.

EssexHebridean

OP - are you getting a mortgage for the purchase? If so, then your lender is unlikely to be happy with you not obtaining a full search pack. 

Have you asked your solicitor if it is just searches applied for directly with the council that are an issue, and if it is, can they use a third party search agent?

Any flood risk will show on your drainage search anyway.

Resale can be an issue with properties about commercial premises. Also consider how you will feel should the premises change use - to another form of restaurant where perhaps you were not a fan of the smells  of that food, or to something like a dry cleaners? 

None of these issues are really the sellers fault however, and presumably you felt the property was worth what you offered originally, so allowing that the flooding thing doesn’t seem like a particularly major issue, I can’t really see why you would feel that a reduced offer was appropriate? 

BraveLuna

EssexHebridean said:

OP - are you getting a mortgage for the purchase? If so, then your lender is unlikely to be happy with you not obtaining a full search pack.

Yes, I am getting a mortgage for the purchase, but some other users in this thread seem to be confident that this is not an issue for most lenders.

Have you asked your solicitor if it is just searches applied for directly with the council that are an issue, and if it is, can they use a third party search agent?

Unfortunately, the data ultimately comes from the council, and they do not have it due to the cyberattack. Even the council's website states that the only option is a partial search combined with indemnity insurance.

None of these issues are really the sellers fault however, and presumably you felt the property was worth what you offered originally, so allowing that the flooding thing doesn’t seem like a particularly major issue, I can’t really see why you would feel that a reduced offer was appropriate?

I understand that the seller is not at fault for this situation, but it’s not my fault either because they are not the type of things that can come up during the viewings.

I don't see how the lack of a full search is comparable to having a complete one. If that were the case, all buyers would simply use indemnity insurance instead of waiting for the search results. Buying insurance should be an option, but in my case, I have no other option and I'm forced to go this route and give up the full search.

This is a very unusual situation where the authority cannot provide a full search. While some buyers might be comfortable proceeding with potential issues undisclosed, others, might not be. I might be missing something here, but since it's not the buyer's fault either, I see it as reasonable to reconsider the price to account for the risk of current issues affecting the property's value in the future (and that I have no way of knowing about now).

AskAsk

BraveLuna said:

EssexHebridean said:

OP - are you getting a mortgage for the purchase? If so, then your lender is unlikely to be happy with you not obtaining a full search pack.

Yes, I am getting a mortgage for the purchase, but some other users in this thread seem to be confident that this is not an issue for most lenders.

Have you asked your solicitor if it is just searches applied for directly with the council that are an issue, and if it is, can they use a third party search agent?

Unfortunately, the data ultimately comes from the council, and they do not have it due to the cyberattack. Even the council's website states that the only option is a partial search combined with indemnity insurance.

None of these issues are really the sellers fault however, and presumably you felt the property was worth what you offered originally, so allowing that the flooding thing doesn’t seem like a particularly major issue, I can’t really see why you would feel that a reduced offer was appropriate?

I understand that the seller is not at fault for this situation, but it’s not my fault either because they are not the type of things that can come up during the viewings.

I don't see how the lack of a full search is comparable to having a complete one. If that were the case, all buyers would simply use indemnity insurance instead of waiting for the search results. Buying insurance should be an option, but in my case, I have no other option and I'm forced to go this route and give up the full search.

This is a very unusual situation where the authority cannot provide a full search. While some buyers might be comfortable proceeding with potential issues undisclosed, others, might not be. I might be missing something here, but since it's not the buyer's fault either, I see it as reasonable to reconsider the price to account for the risk of current issues affecting the property's value in the future (and that I have no way of knowing about now).

If your solicitor says that that indemnity insurance is good enough, then there is no reason the seller would accept a reduction.  You say the problem has been ongoing since 2020.  Do you know how many properties have been sold in Hackney over the last 4 years??  Do you think everyone asked for a reduction because of the cyber attack? 

Life hasn't stood still for the borough, properties have been selling despite this issue, so I can't see how you can convince the seller to agree a reduction for this issue when everyone else is not worried about it.

BarelySentientAI

BraveLuna said:

 I see it as reasonable to reconsider the price to account for the risk of current issues affecting the property's value in the future (and that I have no way of knowing about now).

Yes, you can reconsider the price any time you fancy.  The seller doesn't have to agree to any of it though - and how many sellers would agree to a lower price based on something that nobody knows about but you have decided might exist based on zero evidence?

BraveLuna

AskAsk said:

If your solicitor says that that indemnity insurance is good enough, then there is no reason the seller would accept a reduction.  You say the problem has been ongoing since 2020.  Do you know how many properties have been sold in Hackney over the last 4 years??  Do you think everyone asked for a reduction because of the cyber attack? 

Life hasn't stood still for the borough, properties have been selling despite this issue, so I can't see how you can convince the seller to agree a reduction for this issue when everyone else is not worried about it.

I don't want to convince anyone, and I do know people have been buying and selling despite the cyberattack. Do you know how many have not bought properties in Hackney over the last 4 years because of this issue??

As I said some buyers might feel confident to buy despite not being able to access full search, some other are not. I also have the alternative to just withdraw my offer, but given that the property had been on the market for already 5 months before I made an offer, I thought the seller might want to have the option of a reduced offer rather than just me withdrawing.

To say it all, there are also other small issues such as the agent saying the tenant was already serving notice, when it turned out they are not (I am not BTL and told them even before viewing). Sure, I could have asked for evidence before putting down the offer, I have been naive but they could also just have be honest.