Leaky rental property.

[Frezzinghot]

https://interactives.stuff.co.nz/2018/the-big-leak/

[John the builder]

Land value$435,000
Improved value$25,000
Capital value$460,000

2018 values the land value is 435000 this is what she bought not the building.

The real story here is the 'gravy train' (The leaky specilist lawyer and the weathertight expert) that has exacerbated her predicament.

[Frezzinghot]

That’s not what the story says, the previous vendor who sold it to the agent knew it was leaky and well as the agent who then sold it on knowing it was rotten.

[John the builder]

caveat emptor
she didnt do due diligence. If an owner knows they dont have to tell unless asked. rea;l estate agents have dscloser rules but it is arguable what they knew? She hasnt got a strong case hence the media beat up?

1995 means likely treated timber
it is not rotten it is a house with leaks, her problem is her experts, (and the gravy train) who have made it a 500000 problem It is absurd to contemplate spending 500000 on something with a calue of 25000.

[Wayne]

caveat emptor
she didnt do due diligence. If an owner knows they dont have to tell unless asked. rea;l estate agents have dscloser rules but it is arguable what they knew? She hasnt got a strong case hence the media beat up?

1995 means likely treated timber
it is not rotten it is a house with leaks, her problem is her experts, (and the gravy train) who have made it a 500000 problem It is absurd to contemplate spending 500000 on something with a calue of 25000.

I think you should wait for the outcome of the case rather than effectively convicting the current owner.
Does the bit in the listing agreement and the S&P where the vendor is supposed to list any defects or problems known to the client not mean anything?
Not quite Caveat Emptor.
The vendor was also an educator for ReMax with her interesting mantra of "Discuss. Disclose. Document"

[Frezzinghot]

I think you should wait for the outcome of the case rather than effectively convicting the current owner.
Does the bit in the listing agreement and the S&P where the vendor is supposed to list any defects or problems known to the client not mean anything?
Not quite Caveat Emptor.
The vendor was also an educator for ReMax with her interesting mantra of "Discuss. Disclose. Document"

yes exactly, it states on the form, is there any known defects with the home. I always ask an agent is there anything wrong with the property that I should know about, I guess this statement is possibly useless unless it is in writing. Nevertheless I smell some fishy in this story, and not from the purchaser. Yes she should have done better due diligence but selling something knowing full well that it has major problems is not only dishonest and highly immoral.

[Alexy]

It appears that while the vendor was aware of the problem, the agent who listed the property did not know about it.

Given the house was sold through the auction, does the vendor have to disclose all information known to her?

I thought that selling through the auction frees the vendor from the duty to disclose any information, but of course allow the purchaser do due diligence.

[John the builder]

the experts walking up drive had already decided it needed a reclad. Straight away her problem was uneconomic repair. Her economic loss is actually quite small but now she needs to recover legal and expert costs 100k plus?


f....hot

yes exactly, it states on the form, is there any known defects with the home

The S and P doesnt require this?? I think you are referring to realestate disclosure form ???

10.3 allows for builders report but not invasive investigation so how are you supposed to see into the wall