Worth the investment? (Plaster Home)

[zimbonz]

Hi all,
I am looking at a house to buy, and I thought I would get your advice on potential for moisture issues.
The house was built in the Mid 80's. It does not have a flat roof, and is not Mediterranean style. It has good eaves, and bay windows. No evidence of moisture, from two building inspections, one in 2006, one recently.

The intial building report said that the "main" cladding was brick veneer. and "secondary" cladding was Insulclad.
The house is built on a brick "semi-basement" and some more details are below:

"Decramastic tile roofing, mixed insul clad, brick, weatherboard and
concrete block cladding, aluminium joinery and foundations of reinforced
concrete footings and ground treated timber."

A registered valuation late last year said that the cladding was very well presented, with no sign of moisture. (although not a registered weather-tight report)

The signs seem positive, but from what I have read on here, the general advice to to not touch any plaster home... Would this apply to this in your opinion? I have offered a reasonable price which may be accepted.
Appreciate any of your input.

Cheers,

[watchful]

Hi Zimbonz,

My only comment would be this. If you are having doubts now, will a prospective purchaser have the same doubts when it comes time for you to sell?

[Momo]

Hi Zimbonz,

My only comment would be this. If you are having doubts now, will a prospective purchaser have the same doubts when it comes time for you to sell?

Easy and straightforward answer.

[TheLiberalLeft]

If the plaster cladding occupies only a small percentage of the exterior, I might be tempted to go for it. I'd want to know that the brick cladding had the proper gap though.

[zimbonz]

Thanks TLL.
No there is no gap for the brick cladding, as that was the practice at the time (1986). Luckily the timber framework is treated, and has good soffits (eaves) around the house.

I have had a registered thermal moisture test (from Drybuild - guys know their stuff) and no sinister leakage issues, aside from some standard maintenance issues, that all houses are subject to at some point. (it is 26yrs old)

Given that the report I will be receiving from DryBuild is insured for 5mill - surely that would give peace of mind to any future buyers, even if we had to get it updated at some point?

The building is sound no bulging no stains or damp smells, is a good size and a good section of land.

For a decent price, I think we are leaning towards getting it - but I am still interested to know what you as investors think about the stigma associated to plaster, and whether it is that alone that makes you pass on those types of buildings. Is it perhaps because potential buyers may be ill informed? Could the media have overhyped the situation, because of a few bad eggs?

The other thing is, what product developments in paint and sealers will there be in the short future that might be "miracle cures" for these types of properties? It is after all a billion dollar "problem" that some enterprising people I am sure are looking into.

I suppose it is a gamble but could it be possible, that these sound houses, that have the misfortune to be stigmatised, actually become good investments at some point if the stigma recedes at some point for whatever reason?

As always, sincerely appreciate your input.

cheers

[Viking]

IMHO the issue is not so much water tightness as houses have always got wet but what the structural framing timber is. Is it tanalized main frames and boric the rest. If it is go buy it no worry.

The issue with leakies is the cost of reframing which most often means actually rebuild. If the timber is treated then claddings are replaceable at a relatively minor cost.

Structural integrity is the important issue.

[Traff]

I would not buy it

Regards

Mark

[zimbonz]

Thanks Mark. Care to expand on why?

Cheers,

[One]

My feeling about the plaster houses from the leaky-building era is that they were crappily built out of crappy materials. I wouldn't buy one even if it showed no signs of leaking, because I don't want a crappy house.

This one having proper eaves etc makes it sound a lot better than many. It may be fine. Some people built good houses then!

But I'd be treating it with a lot of suspicion and my suspicion wouldn't be centred round "does it leak?", it'd be round "does it have treated timber framing, air gaps where it should, insulation where it should, flashings where it should, and in general strong evidence that it's well-designed and well-built?"

Edited to add: as TTL points out, this house is before the leaky building era. But the whole discussion still shows how suspicious people (ok, I) have become of plaster buildings!

[TheLiberalLeft]

But mid-80's isn't exactly slap in the middle of leaky-homes territory.

Mark doesn't need a reason. His word being law/lore, and all.

[zimbonz]

Gotcha.
Well thanks for your opinions, We have a bit to think about.
Cheers all.