| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 58666 | 2005-06-08 07:12:00 | Way O/T : Selling a house | bartsdadhomer (80) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 362095 | 2005-06-08 09:45:00 | Fair Go did a very good cover story on just that problem tonight. PJ | Poppa John (284) | ||
| 362096 | 2005-06-08 10:01:00 | That's why prospective buyers should get a LIM report from the local council and check for a code of compliance and get a property inspection done by a reputable building inspector. Providing they haven't gone belly up any come back should be on them. Correct, and also why the lawyers that do the conveyancing for the buyer earn such decent fees - they're paid to advise on all these things |
Greg (193) | ||
| 362097 | 2005-06-08 11:12:00 | Just reinforcing the necessity for a buyer to check for permits, as exWesty said. Constructing the drains, for instance, should've needed a permit originally (Well, certainly if sewers are involved) and if the concrete is "holding up the 2nd storey," it should also have been inspected during construction. If the council has no records for those, they were done illegally - and their absence should make a sensible buyer suspicious. |
Laura (43) | ||
| 362098 | 2005-06-08 21:06:00 | Well LIMS and permits are one hting but all it tells you is that a permit was issued. It does NOT tell you the work is sound. For that you need a builders report, although Fair Go pointed out the house on their prog with the dodgy floor might not have been found even then. All those leaky houses in the news got permits... |
pctek (84) | ||
| 362099 | 2005-06-09 02:11:00 | Good points Pctek. A LIM is good but limited. And most leaky homes had permits and Code of Compliance Certificates. A CCC is the final inspection sign-off by the Council or Building Certifier. So Building Consents (Permits) are a two stage process - get the permit, and when the work is finished, get a CCC. Many people don't realise about the CCC and without it, the building consent process isn't completed. Getting a CCC later on might be impossible. The council won't do it. And a LIM is not a physical inspection of the property - it is just a copy of the council file. So you are wise to get a builder to do an inspection. |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 362100 | 2005-06-09 05:21:00 | For Vendors: Caveat emptor is correct as far as it goes . As Winnie says, if you have any knowledge and are asked specific questions and do not devulge the information, then your in serious doo doo if it is follwed up by a disgruntled purchaser later on . I would go further and say, if you have information that would have an effect on the outcome of the sale and do not disclose it, then, if it can be proved (the biggy), you are in serious doo doo as above . This is particularly applicable to agents . This would not apply to obvious defects . For propective purchasers: LIM's are often next to useless, they are broad brush, usually missing available info . Get someone who knows what they are doing to check the house out prior to a purchase going unconditional (make it a condition) . You want someone expert in code compliance, building processes and faults to be looking on your behalf, IMO, this will exclude the vast majority of builders and many engineers . Get someone who knows their way around TA's (Territorial Authorities) and their record keeping to check the property file . They will be looking for anomolies as much as what is in there . Often producer statements, building/plumbing officer inspection check sheets and even CCC's are not included in the "public" property file and have to be badgered out of the TA despite laws that say they must be kept for public record . Also as pointed out by Winnie, permits and CCC's do not automatically mean the the building complies with building codes and relevant laws . That is why TA's (councils, regional councils, etc) are more often than not named as parties (respondents) in in litigation (/ mediation/adjudication) . You can not get a retrospective CCC, you may apply for a determination, not a CCC, re compliance from the DBH (Department of Building & Housing), a TA is entitled to demand that the structure be rectified at your expense (possible demolition and reconstruction of the offending parts) . Use someone who is reputable, specialises in building or prepurchase inspections and has some sort of standard they adhere to (not the Aussie one) . There are incompetents and cowboys in this "profession" as much as any other (I have personally come across two where the lousy sods have cost people plenty of heartache and bills amounting to hundreds of thousands, and more where the damage was less expensive) . A building surveyor (not land) is your best bet but I doubt you will get on in the time frame allowed by most agents/lawyers in the agreement conditions, push for 14 days though to give yourself a chance . The faults in the Fair Go programme, if it's the one I'm thinking of, should IMO, have been picked up by a competent inspection, although it is not always easy to spot faults where non-invasive inspections are involved . |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 362101 | 2005-06-09 05:57:00 | Murray: Is a "building surveyor" the same as what I know as a "structional engineer" - with merely a name change? Or are they two different things? |
Laura (43) | ||
| 362102 | 2005-06-09 07:29:00 | Caveat emptor does still apply to buying a property. Buyer beware. If an agent or the vendor are asked a specific question about say, flooding or structural issues, then they are liable if they lie, or say nothing when they have knowledge. Silence can be misleading conduct. A LIM won't highlight these problems unless the Council knows of the problems. Really the buyer needs to get a builder or engineer to check the place out. Unhappily folks often don't bother. People spend hundreds of thousands of dollars but balk at a few dollars for an expert inspection. I'm afraid this isn't much help. You could alert the council and see if they check it out. Then it goes on their file and the vendor cannot say they don't know. I agree 100%. Having the LIM report in my hot little hand I still employed a registered builder to check out the place before I bought it. No problems were found (other than obvious ones) but it pays to get an independent report anyway. Personally I can't figure why some people will buy a house without having an INDEPENDANT person check it out first. They might go to the AA for a check on buying a car but a house is a far bigger investment. It is the job of a Real Estate person to sell the house. I see no reason why the Real Estate person would tell the prospective buyer anything. It may be difficult to prove they actually know of any defects. |
Elephant (599) | ||
| 362103 | 2005-06-09 07:37:00 | Murray: Is a "building surveyor" the same as what I know as a "structional engineer" - with merely a name change? Or are they two different things? Different beasties. A Building Surveyor (http://www.buildingsurveyors.co.nz/) may indeed be an engineer (some are), but building surveyors have specific training and competancy in code compliance, construction faults (and the finding thereof), remediation (including remedial works), weathertightness (included as a seperate category due to topicality), cause and fault. It's a big topic ranging across, structure (but not specific design (engineering)), applied coating systems, to microorganism's. |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 362104 | 2005-06-09 08:37:00 | So Murray P whats your handle then????? :D beetle |
beetle (243) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||