Offering a reduced price close to contracts

FTB_Leeds

Hi all,

Hoping for a bit of advice. I am currently in the process of buying a leasehold flat. I am due to sign the contracts tomorrow (not exchange) but recently something has come up. In 2019 a boiler (unvented hot water cylinders) in another flat “exploded” causing massive leaks. Due to this the insurance increased the excess from 500 to 5000 in the event of future boilers leaking. It appears that back in 2019 Avira tried taking Oso to court regarding the increased number of insurance claims around there products. Anyway to cut a long story short, I’ve found out since that in the last month another boiler has gone in the property. Plus someone who I know who lives in the property had there’s replaced as they were having issues. Another person is aware of the excess but not replaced his boiler as he has had no issues. 

A new boiler would cost around 2-3k. That with the higher than usually excess on leaks around boilers, would it be fair to ask for a considerable discount (4k-5k) on the property? Or we could stick with the agreed price and they replace the boiler? 

The reason for 4-5k and not 2-3k for my view is the higher than usually excess plus that I would need to play for the boiler upfront. The flat also needs other work doing to it but I accepted that initially but with having to replace a new boiler it would put my other plans back. 

Am I being unfair if the boiler is working fine? (We’ve had no record of the boiler been serviced) however the property was initially being rented out should I’d assume it would have to be. 

Apologies for the long ramble.

FTB_Leeds

Sorry to clarify a boiler in another flat. Not in the property I am buying.

Hoenir

FTB_Leeds said:

Am I being unfair if the boiler is working fine? (We’ve had no record of the boiler been serviced) however the property was initially being rented out should I’d assume it would have to be. 

In this instance. Onus would be on you to pay for an inspection. To provide peace of mind. Rather than pluck numbers out of the air and attempt to justify them.  

sg1000

Stick to the agreed price.  Two boilers have failed in the "block" (you have not said how many flats are in the block) in a six year period.  I don't think the current sellers should be installing a new boiler for you, either.  There appears to be no issue with the boiler.

If I was the vendor and you proposed that, at this late stage I would thinkyou were "at it" and the sale may fall through.  By all means, walk away if you think it is an issue, though.

FTB_Leeds

Apologies, the block is made up of two buildings with a total of 73 flats. I know of two boilers that have caused major leaks one in 2019 and one just last month. The third was my friend of my parents who had minor issues and replaced theirs. 

I think what has worried me a little is the unusually high excess and the fact that just in the last month a boiler has gone. Causing damages to the communal areas which have required repair.

The building was built in 2007 and has had the same Oso boilers since then.

FTB_Leeds

There were two correspondences to tenants in 2019. 

1) If you property still has the original Oso cylinder, consideration should be given to to a replacement even if it working fine. These cylinders are known to fail from the inside out and this cannot detect a splitting issue until it happens.

2) Aviva made a claim against Oso which was settled out of court. As such Oso didn’t admit liability and was therefore not required to replace potential defected boilers.

user1977

So the excess is £4500 higher than expected, but split 73 ways, and even then only if there's a relevant claim? Not sure your sums make sense.

Are you really going to replace a working boiler?

FTB_Leeds

The excess is the responsibility of the tenant who’s property the leak relates too. So if it was my boiler then I am responsible for the excess.

user1977

FTB_Leeds said:

The excess is the responsibility of the tenant who’s property the leak relates too. So if it was my boiler then I am responsible for the excess.

And you're wanting to deduct both the cost of a new boiler, and some allowance for the excess which you wouldn't be liable for anyway because you'll have a shiny new non-exploding boiler?

FTB_Leeds

user1977 said:

FTB_Leeds said:

The excess is the responsibility of the tenant who’s property the leak relates too. So if it was my boiler then I am responsible for the excess.

And you're wanting to deduct both the cost of a new boiler, and some allowance for the excess which you wouldn't be liable for anyway because you'll have a shiny new non-exploding boiler?

I suppose the risk is only based on two previous boilers in the last 6 years causing major damages. I can’t say how many other flats changed the boilers when they were initially made aware of issues in 2019. I only know of one other that has been changed and that was due to minor leaks.


ill be honest I think it’s caught me off guard with me being made aware a couple of days before I am signing the contract. So maybe I needed a reality check, like what has been said “if the boiler is working fine why change?”

DullGreyGuy

FTB_Leeds said:

The building was built in 2007 and has had the same Oso boilers since then.

Is this a boiler? If it is then at 18 years old its coming near to end of life by most standards anyway so you should have been budgeting its not to distant replacement. A google just shows Oso water cylinders though not boilers and life expectancy is less obvious. 

EoW typically has the second highest excess in Home insurance and can be the highest in Block insurance. £5k is far from exceptional and not particularly uncommon on a property thats experienced prior claims. I recall a few threads on here about similar sized excess for EoW claim in flats, unfortunately for them it's normally found out after the problem has occurred unlike you. 

I think asking for £5k off when looking to replace the aging system will be under half that is far from reasonable but this is house buying, you dont have to be reasonable.

user1977 said:

So the excess is £4500 higher than expected, but split 73 ways, and even then only if there's a relevant claim? Not sure your sums make sense.

Is it split 73 ways?

Our lease is silent on who pays the excess in the event of a claim. In at least one prior case on here just the two flats impacted by the loss were contributing to the excess