First time buyer home survey

tomato__

Hi, I am a first time buyer, made an offer on a studio flat in London of 26 square metres, 1 of 4 flats in a 1930s house . I thought I may as well mention the price as it helps consider if it’s a fair deal.. It’s £200000.

Although bit small, when I did the viewing, the inside looked nice and has recently refurbished, so I made an offer.

The home survey just came back, I am a bit concern and not sure if I should go ahead/pull out.

So the internal has no issues, but external quite a few issues were listed on the report.

These have 3s and require immediate attention:

-Roof coverings

-Roof structure

-Main walls
-Rainwater pipes and gutters 

-Other joinery and finishes 

I goggled the cost to fix them, I think all of them should within £20000, I haven’t got any quotes.

The roof is quite poor so I think maybe it needs a complete replacement.
In the survey: 'The roof covering to the main roof, rear addition roof and canopy roof is coming towards the end of its useful life and you should budget for re-covering in the near future’

'The flashings to the main roof and rear addition roof are in a poor condition and require attention.’

''The roof valley was found to be in poor condition, exhibiting significant signs of deterioration. Currently, the valley appears to be blocked, which impedes proper water drainage and could lead to leakage and further damage to the roof structure. ‘

'The mortar bedding to the ridge and hip tiles is deteriorating and attention will be required in the short to mid term. ‘

And the main wall 'We found examples of blown render to the external elevations - this is where the render loses its key to the wall and pulls away, issues were widespread and are likely to reach further up the wall. 

My questions are - 1) with these issues found, is it still worth the price, should I re-negotiate? If the price goes down/remains unchanged, should I go ahead? 
Apologies in advance if these questions are not wise, I’m a first time timer that has worked for a few years, sick of paying such a high rent, feel like throwing money to the dump..  Thank you!

Albermarle

There are regular posts on this forum from FTB's scared by the results of a survey, that mainly would not phase a more experienced buyer.
Three main points are 
1) Surveyors are over cautious as they want to cover their backs in case of a future complaint.
2) The property is nearly 100 years old, so you can expect some issues.
3) You should see the surveyors comments as mainly some indication of jobs that might need doing in the next couple of years, and not necessarily now/as a way of trying to get the price reduced.

horsewithnoname

I nearly pulled out of buying my first home after reading the survey! But someone older and wiser put my mind at rest, and though eventually I did get a new roof, the house is still standing as far as I’m aware. 

They like to cover their backs and seems to be standard to recommend having specialist roof electric and damp reports on most houses. 

Unless you’ve reason to think that the property isn’t priced according to its current condition, then maintenance is all part of home ownership. 

propertyrental

Some of those issues are no concern. a roof 'coming to the end of its life' could last another 5, 10, 20 years or more. Unless water is actually getting in it's not a real problem. Likewise the flashing. And unblocking the valley is just normal maintenance, removing leaves etc).

So yes some maintenance is needed.

The blown render is potentially an issue. Is there damp on the relevant internal walls? Water gets behind the render, is trapped between render and bricks, and has nowhere to go/no way to evaporate, so spreads through the bricks to the inside. How extensive is it? How tall is the building? Erecting scaffolding, removing all the render, and replacing it would be expensive.

The other factor is the freeholder (or other leaseholders). How active is the FH? Will they organise the work and get the leaseholders to pay? Will they ignore all maintenance and let things deteriorate? If the leaseholders (including you?) also own the freehold, will you all work cooperatively to do maintenance work without incurring unnecessary costs?

tomato__

Albermarle said:

There are regular posts on this forum from FTB's scared by the results of a survey, that mainly would not phase a more experienced buyer.
Three main points are 
1) Surveyors are over cautious as they want to cover their backs in case of a future complaint.
2) The property is nearly 100 years old, so you can expect some issues.
3) You should see the surveyors comments as mainly some indication of jobs that might need doing in the next couple of years, and not necessarily now/as a way of trying to get the price reduced.

The home survey does look intimating to us FTB, I guess we are being so cautious and did bunch of research online hence freaking ourselves out!horsewithnoname said:

I nearly pulled out of buying my first home after reading the survey! But someone older and wiser put my mind at rest, and though eventually I did get a new roof, the house is still standing as far as I’m aware. 

They like to cover their backs and seems to be standard to recommend having specialist roof electric and damp reports on most houses. 

Unless you’ve reason to think that the property isn’t priced according to its current condition, then maintenance is all part of home ownership. 

You've put my mind at rest Yes I agree maintenance is a part of home ownership.propertyrental said:

Some of those issues are no concern. a roof 'coming to the end of its life' could last another 5, 10, 20 years or more. Unless water is actually getting in it's not a real problem. Likewise the flashing. And unblocking the valley is just normal maintenance, removing leaves etc).

So yes some maintenance is needed.

The blown render is potentially an issue. Is there damp on the relevant internal walls? Water gets behind the render, is trapped between render and bricks, and has nowhere to go/no way to evaporate, so spreads through the bricks to the inside. How extensive is it? How tall is the building? Erecting scaffolding, removing all the render, and replacing it would be expensive.

The other factor is the freeholder (or other leaseholders). How active is the FH? Will they organise the work and get the leaseholders to pay? Will they ignore all maintenance and let things deteriorate? If the leaseholders (including you?) also own the freehold, will you all work cooperatively to do maintenance work without incurring unnecessary costs?

No the internal walls look fine, they are newly painted, the report didn't say anything but some mould which it says are normal.
I am not sure how extensive is it but it says 'widespread', it's a 2 Story Victorian House.
The FH is my concern too, although I don't have to pay ground rent/management fee, the vendor told me if there are any work needs to be done around the house, the 4 owners just raise and agree in a group chat, the vendors said they are lovely people (I hope so!)

Many thanks for all the replies

AlexMac

I wouldn’t necessarily be put off (I have on two occasions bought a house which immediately needed a new roof as there was visible damp penetration) but…

@propertyrental, above, has identified the issue which is key, in my opinion, (having owned five leasehold flats over the years, three of them in period conversions older than yours). 

That is the questions relating to who is the freeholder, who actually manages the freehold building and what your lease says about repairing responsibilities and how costs are assigned. 

All three of my older flats were in “shared freeholds” where the leaseholders collectively owned the freehold as members or directors of the “non-profit” Freehold company. This company was responsible for buildings insurance, communal areas, grounds, shared lighting and repairs to the fabric of the building.

 In each case the leases were really competently drafted; very clear on how structural or major works were to be funded; defining these (eg roofs and gutters, external windows, external decoration and any rising or penetrating damp), and how costs were to be recharged and shared between leaseholders (a varying % where flats differed in size as was the case). 

So, at best, in your case, it might be that the £20k roofing work, (when and if agreed as necessary by the freeholder) would be shared by all four flats?  This would be easier if there were competent freehold management arrangements in place. ( the two oldest flats I owned were great; we as freeholders got on well, and ran everything ourselves; sharing the work of collecting service charges, submitting simple annual returns to Companies House, commissioning repairs, insuring… In consequence, we had no Agent fees, tight cost control, the cheapest Service Charges, the best maintained mansion in the street, and annual surpluses building towards a “sinking fund” for future biggies like roof repairs or cyclical external decorations!)

At worse, you’ll have poorly defined arrangements, an absent or incompetent freeholder or Managing arrangements and no clarity about whether you cop the roofing costs or the whole building chips in?

  The problem is getting dependable answers other than via your solicitor’s formal enquiries.  But you could ask? 

When I sold the flats I mention, I made sure that the Estate Agent knew all the good points above (although most EAs are unwilling to provide such “contractual” detail, preferring to leave it to the lawyers. Which don’t stop you nosing about. I once walked away from a purchase when it became obvious that the freeholders or their agents were 4r5ey and useless. 

Good luck and best wishes with the purchase 

tomato__

AlexMac said:

I wouldn’t necessarily be put off (I have on two occasions bought a house which immediately needed a new roof as there was visible damp penetration) but…

@propertyrental, above, has identified the issue which is key, in my opinion, (having owned five leasehold flats over the years, three of them in period conversions older than yours). 

That is the questions relating to who is the freeholder, who actually manages the freehold building and what your lease says about repairing responsibilities and how costs are assigned. 

All three of my older flats were in “shared freeholds” where the leaseholders collectively owned the freehold as members or directors of the “non-profit” Freehold company. This company was responsible for buildings insurance, communal areas, grounds, shared lighting and repairs to the fabric of the building.

 In each case the leases were really competently drafted; very clear on how structural or major works were to be funded; defining these (eg roofs and gutters, external windows, external decoration and any rising or penetrating damp), and how costs were to be recharged and shared between leaseholders (a varying % where flats differed in size as was the case). 

So, at best, in your case, it might be that the £20k roofing work, (when and if agreed as necessary by the freeholder) would be shared by all four flats?  This would be easier if there were competent freehold management arrangements in place. ( the two oldest flats I owned were great; we as freeholders got on well, and ran everything ourselves; sharing the work of collecting service charges, submitting simple annual returns to Companies House, commissioning repairs, insuring… In consequence, we had no Agent fees, tight cost control, the cheapest Service Charges, the best maintained mansion in the street, and annual surpluses building towards a “sinking fund” for future biggies like roof repairs or cyclical external decorations!)

At worse, you’ll have poorly defined arrangements, an absent or incompetent freeholder or Managing arrangements and no clarity about whether you cop the roofing costs or the whole building chips in?

  The problem is getting dependable answers other than via your solicitor’s formal enquiries.  But you could ask? 

When I sold the flats I mention, I made sure that the Estate Agent knew all the good points above (although most EAs are unwilling to provide such “contractual” detail, preferring to leave it to the lawyers. Which don’t stop you nosing about. I once walked away from a purchase when it became obvious that the freeholders or their agents were 4r5ey and useless. 

Good luck and best wishes with the purchase 

Thank you for such a comprehensive reply and sharing!

After reading this I will definitely raise questions with the estate agent and solicitor. We don't have anything formal written down yet, so it's just a fair understanding that the freeholders will share the costs. I now know I'm being too naive! Originally I thought the building itself was a bigger issue but it seems the legality is more of a concern.
My solicitor didn't seem to have queried this either, the docs they sent are some standard ones from local authority, etc..
The no Agent fees, tight cost control, the cheapest Service Charges do sound very nice I was hoping for the same when I made the offer. 

Thanks again

Bookworm105

it is one of 4 flats
the issues identified all relate to the structure of the building, and therefore whose responsibility they are comes down to what is the freehold scenario and is there a sinking fund or not ?

i very much doubt your lease makes you solely responsible for roof and render, more likely it will be shared between leaseholds or a charge on the sinking fund. Works would therefore need leaseholder approval and financial contributions if sinking fund not big enough to take the hit.

is the grounds for lowering your offer? Not really as the surveyor is just covering themselves - "short to medium term" means what? 5 - 15 yeas? Little impact on current value 

propertyrental

Knocking on the neighbours' doors can be enlightening.

OK, yes they might tell you to 'F Off' but that in itself tells you a lot.

Or they might invite you in for a coffee/chat and tell you the real facts about how the building is managed, what the area is like etc etc.

Or something in between those extremes. It's all helpful info.......

tomato__

Bookworm105 said:

it is one of 4 flats
the issues identified all relate to the structure of the building, and therefore whose responsibility they are comes down to what is the freehold scenario and is there a sinking fund or not ?

i very much doubt your lease makes you solely responsible for roof and render, more likely it will be shared between leaseholds or a charge on the sinking fund. Works would therefore need leaseholder approval and financial contributions if sinking fund not big enough to take the hit.

is the grounds for lowering your offer? Not really as the surveyor is just covering themselves - "short to medium term" means what? 5 - 15 yeas? Little impact on current value 

I think so too, definitely will ask if this is written down formally!

Thank you  

tomato__

propertyrental said:

Knocking on the neighbours' doors can be enlightening.

OK, yes they might tell you to 'F Off' but that in itself tells you a lot.

Or they might invite you in for a coffee/chat and tell you the real facts about how the building is managed, what the area is like etc etc.

Or something in between those extremes. It's all helpful info.......

It would take me some courage to knock on their doors, but it's a good idea!