Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Vendor Surveys

Options
  • 14-07-2018 9:13am
    #1
    mp3guy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,969 ✭✭✭


    Why aren't these more common? I've heard of two separate sale agreed incidents where the buyers had to pull out because of significant structural issues identified in surveys. Obviously stuff they couldn't identify themselves during the viewing.

    Surely vendors aren't naive and could save themselves time and money if they just forked out a few hundred before selling to discover any show stoppers?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Glass fused light
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Glass fused light


    Because the seller is not legaly obliged to provide it or to give any assurances as to the building in doing so they would leave themselves open to a court case if something was discovered after the sale which was not picked up in the survey. Plus a lot of the expensive faults would only be found by damaging the property.
    For a distressed seller who can't make the bank payment a 100e would be too much.


  • Options
    #3
    mp3guy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,969 ✭✭✭mp3guy


    Whether or not they're legally obliged is the beside the point - When a buyer's surveyor discovers an issue with a property a normal response is for the vendor to get their own surveyor in to see if the reports match. This would simply be pre-empting that, not a strict legal component of the sale process.


  • Options
    #4
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,339 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    mp3guy wrote: »
    Whether or not they're legally obliged is the beside the point - When a buyer's surveyor discovers an issue with a property a normal response is for the vendor to get their own surveyor in to see if the reports match. This would simply be pre-empting that, not a strict legal component of the sale process.

    Do you provide a full comprehensive report on a car you are selling to another private individual?

    Same principle applies to houses, that’s why the buyer pays a surveyor to highlight any possible issues and then pay a specialist for any specific issues such as plumbing, electrical or structural.


  • Options
    #5
    mp3guy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,969 ✭✭✭mp3guy


    kceire wrote: »
    Do you provide a full comprehensive report on a car you are selling to another private individual?

    Same principle applies to houses, that’s why the buyer pays a surveyor to highlight any possible issues and then pay a specialist for any specific issues such as plumbing, electrical or structural.

    Given people often sell cars with NCTs, that analogy supports my point of view that there is an advantage to the vendor to have their own proof of integrity (though the NCT isn't a great analogy as it is a legal necessity).

    My point was never about a vendor providing such a report up front either. It's about having it in their back pocket ready to counter any buyer observations or even before that point in time to know for themselves they have issues they'll need to fix before selling.

    If we stick with the car analogy, people in general do service their car and get it checked out regularly. This doesn't seem to happen with houses.


  • Options
    #6
    Glass fused light
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Glass fused light


    mp3guy wrote: »
    Whether or not they're legally obliged is the beside the point - When a buyer's surveyor discovers an issue with a property a normal response is for the vendor to get their own surveyor in to see if the reports match. This would simply be pre-empting that, not a strict legal component of the sale process.
    unless there is a serious/hidden structural issue the seller would not need a surveyor in to get a matching report. Most home owners would be able to fill in the report sitting at their kitchen table.
    In a buyers market the seller may pay for a report to argue over the price reduction, but in a sellers market unless they are in a time sensitive chain, the seller will just stick to the price and move on to the next buyer who is willing to pay the asking price and spend the funds needed to correct any problems.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    d.pop
    Registered Users Posts: 271 ✭✭d.pop


    In last 12 months I spent €4K on engineers reports and solicitors fees on a house I was trying to buy.
    Serious structural issues came to light after we went sale agreed.
    Vendor refused to accept our engineers report. We got a second engineers report from another independent engineer. Same issues.
    I got builders quotes to repair the problem. Needed underpinning and serious structural works to make it good.
    Price came in at around €100k for repairs. They had no home insurance or so they said to repair it.
    Vendor refused to renegotiate so we walked away. Still had to pay for 2 x engineers and solicitor.
    Vendor has put house back on market for original asking price and estate agent is not telling interested parties about the problem.
    Has been 2-3 more people spent >€500 each on engineers reports to find out what in my mind once discovered should be disclosed to all interested parties.
    I think like the uk model all vendors should have to have a complete sales pack done prior to putting house on market.


  • Options
    #8
    mp3guy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,969 ✭✭✭mp3guy


    d.pop wrote: »
    In last 12 months I spent €4K on engineers reports and solicitors fees on a house I was trying to buy.
    Serious structural issues came to light after we went sale agreed.
    Vendor refused to accept our engineers report. We got a second engineers report from another independent engineer. Same issues.
    I got builders quotes to repair the problem. Needed underpinning and serious structural works to make it good.
    Price came in at around €100k for repairs. They had no home insurance or so they said to repair it.
    Vendor refused to renegotiate so we walked away. Still had to pay for 2 x engineers and solicitor.
    Vendor has put house back on market for original asking price and estate agent is not telling interested parties about the problem.
    Has been 2-3 more people spent >€500 each on engineers reports to find out what in my mind once discovered should be disclosed to all interested parties.
    I think like the uk model all vendors should have to have a complete sales pack done prior to putting house on market.

    I guess this is the other side of the coin where the vendor doesn't want to know/care and is just waiting on some poor naive buyer to come along and purchase without a survey.


  • Options
    #9
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,339 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    mp3guy wrote: »
    Given people often sell cars with NCTs, that analogy supports my point of view that there is an advantage to the vendor to have their own proof of integrity (though the NCT isn't a great analogy as it is a legal necessity).

    My point was never about a vendor providing such a report up front either. It's about having it in their back pocket ready to counter any buyer observations or even before that point in time to know for themselves they have issues they'll need to fix before selling.

    If we stick with the car analogy, people in general do service their car and get it checked out regularly. This doesn't seem to happen with houses.

    The problem is that one surveyor today may find an issue that another surveyor doesn’t find tomorrow or vice versa.

    I can see your point that maybe every house that goes to market could have a standardized inspection maybe but it’s just another layer for someone to pay.

    The buyer will still have to get a survey.


  • Options
    #10
    Glass fused light
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Glass fused light


    mp3guy wrote: »
    I guess this is the other side of the coin where the vendor doesn't want to know/care and is just waiting on some poor naive buyer to come along and purchase without a survey.

    Dose not just have to be a survey, I know one house which was being sold which in the words of the county planner would only go into breach on the first day of occupancy occurring. And the new owner would end up with having to sort out the mess the seller made, mainly that the neighbour hated the seller so intended to force the planning department into acting


  • Options
    #11
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,339 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    Glass fused light wrote: »
    Dose not just have to be a survey, I know one house which was being sold which in the words of the county planner would only go into breach on the first day of occupancy occurring. And the new owner would end up with having to sort out the mess the seller made, mainly that the neighbour hated the seller so intended to force the planning department into acting

    Why didn’t the planning department act on the current owner?
    There’s no planning regulations that exempt a current owner that doesn’t pass on to a new owner?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Glass fused light
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Glass fused light


    kceire wrote: »
    Why didn’t the planning department act on the current owner?
    There’s no planning regulations that exempt a current owner that doesn’t pass on to a new owner?

    Hi sorry was off line. The house was never occupied. It was the local need bit in a rural area, technically breached through a convolution, apparently the requirement only failed when the applicant fails to move in. Anyway I don't think the property was ever sold or occupied. I must check back as I always wondered if and how the council would react on enforcement


  • Options
    #13
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,339 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    Glass fused light wrote: »
    Hi sorry was off line. The house was never occupied. It was the local need bit in a rural area, technically breached through a convolution, apparently the requirement only failed when the applicant fails to move in. Anyway I don't think the property was ever sold or occupied. I must check back as I always wondered if and how the council would react on enforcement

    Agh, that’s a planning condition.
    It’s usuall stated that it has to be occupied by the local needs applicant for 7 years or so. After that he can sell and the local needs condition doesn’t need to be met.


Advertisement