Selling a plaster/monolithic clad house

[Sandie]

I own a monolithic clad house, insulclad, that was built before the requirement for a cavity. There appear to be no leaks but it has design features which would not be allowed today. What is the usual process when selling this kind of house? Do I get a building surveyor to do a pre-sale report for prospective buyers or do I leave it to prospective buyers to do their own due diligence?

Sandie

[Perry]

Based on personal experience, get the most highly qualified person you can, to prepare a report. A building certifier (or someone at least at that level) - definitely not a builder. Ours was not cheap, but sold the house within 5 days after the report was given to the REA. That was after many months of no progress beforehand and prospective buyers' builders' reports putting them all off.

Before you ask: unfortunately the chap we used has retired.

[teamchase]

Id agree with Perry, If you're confident on it being sound you should consider investing in a quality report as part of your "marketing". The report if favorable will be worth its price, and even if its not 100% it makes for a transparent transaction.

You can sit back and wait for other people to do the report, but will it be accurate? and how will it shape your sales price...

I had no issues with insulclad, but kept up with regular coatings of elastomeric paint.

[roughy]

Where are you based?

[Sandie]

Where are you based?

Auckland

Sandie

[John the builder]

The problem you have with a pre-sales report is that if it isnt carefully crafted it may be taken to say there are no problems and this is unlikely. You have to ghet buyer to accept the risk with their own due diligence.

When the new owner finds "that leak" a can of worms opens up that is driven by cost of a reclad that 'his' experts say it now needs. It is out of time to get constructors to pay so they look to the seller.

caveat emptor should apply but if you make representations these can bite you.

Talk to step up group put in the probe system and let the performance speak for itself (http://www.stepupgroup.co.nz/)

[Perry]

One of the possible reasons that building certifiers are in short supply is indemnity insurance. Despite what JtB says, the buyer would likely first sue the certifier if something was not in the report that perhaps should have been.

[Nick G]

Indemnity insurance for certification and inspection is very, very high. That's why most inspectors only do inspections now and don't build, in the past a builder could carry both insurances and do both.

[donna]

We're using one (has a science background) to peer review every step of our new build from the design phase. He has already changed our minds on cladding and now we're going for a very basic design (much to the disappointment of our architect who had all sorts of interesting roof angles going on - including angling the roof into a V so the water runs down both sides into the middle of house.

cheers,

Donna

[Perry]

. . .much to the disappointment of our architect who had all sorts of interesting roof angles going on - including angling the roof into a V so the water runs down both sides into the middle of house.

Again based on personal experience, an internal V gutter of that type is a good thing to avoid. The problem I found was that in heavy falls, the rush of water went up under the roofing edge on the far side, over the sill of the gutter and leaked into the ceiling. I fixed it by putting a "'fin' down the centre of the gutter, to arrest that occasional rush of water.

Generally speaking, internal gutters are to be avoided, as much as possible.