|
 |
 |
Conveyancing Consumer Alert: Art Deco Disappointment
When first home-buyer and single working-mum Cathy read this agent’s spiel, she did act quickly. She arranged an inspection, loved what she saw and immediately made an offer. Unfortunately someone else made a better offer, and Cathy missed out. Undeterred, Cathy wrote to the owners of the other units in this pre-World War II building which had been strata-titled some 25 years ago. Explaining how she just adored Art Deco architecture, Cathy asked if any owner might consider selling. The owner of the unit adjoining the one Cathy had inspected soon replied. He was interested in selling. The property was not listed with an agent so Cathy and the owner negotiated privately, reached an agreement then contacted their solicitors about preparing a formal contract. Cathy’s solicitor made sure this was subject to finance and included protective building/pest and body corporate inspection conditions. With the contract all signed up, Cathy applied for finance. Her bank was happy with its valuation and approved a loan. Cathy’s solicitor’s body corporate records inspection disclosed nothing untoward, although a sinking fund forecast indicated there would be increasing but manageable maintenance expenses over coming years. Everything was looking good with the building/pest inspectors still to report. Cathy was devastated when both the building and pest reports came in far from favourable. The pest inspector could not access sub-floor areas but noted signs of concrete drilling from previous termite treatment to common property. He was particularly concerned about sub-floor ventilation because of obvious “damp problems to the external brickwork”. Also obvious were rusting nail heads in the flooring which, he said, “usually indicates moisture from a lack of ventilation”. Although there was evidence of termite damage in the skirting boards, the inspector could not determine if termites were active unless “necessary and essential” invasive inspections were made. This would involve opening up (with the owner’s approval) timbers and floors which, he explained, might disturb termites and “hinder colony chemical transfer treatment if required”. The building inspector also spotted the skirting board damage, and had similar concerns about the importance of sub-floor ventilation. He suspected that deterioration of the lower external walls “in various places” was the result of rising damp. He also noted high moisture readings to some internal walls – again from rising damp. There was movement –not at the station – but in the walls, both internal and external. Although some interior wall cracks had been patched, the walls appeared to have moved since the patching. Since further movement was possible, the inspector recommended consulting a structural engineer. Finally he found the kitchen cupboards poorly constructed, deteriorating and in need of replacement. This was an apartment with problems. Cathy’s plans to own a trendy Art Deco pad in a blue-chip suburb were dashed. With heavy heart, she instructed her solicitor to cancel the contract. The inspection condition allowed this if she was not satisfied with the inspectors’ reports. Cathy got her deposit back, but was out of pocket her solicitor’s fees, his searches and her building and pest inspectors’ fees. Bring on full vendor disclosure! Meanwhile had Cathy googled “Art Deco”, she might have found this ominous warning: “Not all Art Deco apartments are of the same quality”. (This true story, where real names are not used, first ran in Australian Property Investor Magazine.) To post your comment on this item, please return to
Legal Notice |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
OPINION
