Hi everyone, have been reading the forums here for quite a while but finally have a question I can't find the answer to.
In your opinion, what is "average condition" for an older house?
We have put an offer in on a 1950s house that seemed to be pretty average, only to find during the pre-purchase inspections that the bathroom walls and floorboards are really rotten (bathroom wall has dry rot right through to the master bedroom), and the original concrete tile roof is at the end of its life - I could see it was pretty eroded, but the roofer says there's no point in repairing the holes and cracked ridge caps because even if we did, more problems will keep coming and it will still need a new roof in a couple of years anyway. (The repairs would be about 40% of the cost of a full re-roof).
We found other stuff that I would have taken as "average" (e.g some of the wiring is from the 1970s and need rewiring), but after the inspection, I was expecting a bit of movement in the price given that the vendors claimed not to have known about the rotten bathroom when we first put in our offer, and they had no one else interested in their house except us.
However, when we asked the vendors to either remedy or lower the price a bit, they refused and said that the house is in average condition and the price reflects that.
I agree with them that the price reflects what I would have thought it should go for if it was in average condition. I just wouldn't have thought this was average condition. It needs about 20K of repairs just to keep it from deteriorating further. Most houses we have looked at seemed to need way less work. But... this is the first house we've actually gone through the due diligence process on, so I don't know - are all the other average houses out there hiding similar maintenance issues?
Is this really average? What do you think?
(The house is in Whangarei, if that makes any difference).
In your opinion, what is "average condition" for an older house?
We have put an offer in on a 1950s house that seemed to be pretty average, only to find during the pre-purchase inspections that the bathroom walls and floorboards are really rotten (bathroom wall has dry rot right through to the master bedroom), and the original concrete tile roof is at the end of its life - I could see it was pretty eroded, but the roofer says there's no point in repairing the holes and cracked ridge caps because even if we did, more problems will keep coming and it will still need a new roof in a couple of years anyway. (The repairs would be about 40% of the cost of a full re-roof).
We found other stuff that I would have taken as "average" (e.g some of the wiring is from the 1970s and need rewiring), but after the inspection, I was expecting a bit of movement in the price given that the vendors claimed not to have known about the rotten bathroom when we first put in our offer, and they had no one else interested in their house except us.
However, when we asked the vendors to either remedy or lower the price a bit, they refused and said that the house is in average condition and the price reflects that.
I agree with them that the price reflects what I would have thought it should go for if it was in average condition. I just wouldn't have thought this was average condition. It needs about 20K of repairs just to keep it from deteriorating further. Most houses we have looked at seemed to need way less work. But... this is the first house we've actually gone through the due diligence process on, so I don't know - are all the other average houses out there hiding similar maintenance issues?
Is this really average? What do you think?
(The house is in Whangarei, if that makes any difference).


Comment