House has been treated for termites, buy or cool off?

[ChrisLang]

Hi people,

I am asking this for my friends that have gotten themselves into a situation. They are typical first home buyers, trusting the REA and everything, signed an offer for a house that has been accepted and subject to finance and building+pest inspections.

The pest inspection found evidence of treatment for termites, the vendor confirms that some years ago they had a house treated and lost the paperwork. I believe my friends still can cool off.

What would you suggest, should they try and knock the price down? If that succeeds, go ahead with the purchase? Or cool off no matter what, because eventually they will need to sell that house and the word "termites" will drive potential buyers away? If knock the price down - how much (the offer they signed is for 294K, not exactly a bargain for that money)?

 

[vbplease]

The pest inspection found evidence of treatment for termites, the vendor confirms that some years ago they had a house treated and lost the paperwork. I believe my friends still can cool off.

"Termite treatment" sounds pretty vague.. for all you know there is no termite damage and the treatment was just a preventative measure?

Its been discussed before that building and pest reports can sound very severe - its in the inspectors best interest to note all defects to prevent litigation against themselves.

I'd suggest your friend has a chat "off the record" with the pest inspector. He can better describe how severe the termite damage really is and what cost is req'd to fix - which will be the reduction in your friend's offer.

 

[vbplease]

Also, your friends shouldn't use the cooling off period and risk losing the deposit.. They should use the b/p clause, that's what it is for.

 

[RumpledElf]

Isn't evidence of termite treatment a *good* thing? Although its supposed to be done annually not so infrequently the paperwork goes missing.

I'd be more worried about no evidence of treatment and lots of evidence of damage. I have two houses - one has termite damage and no evidence of treatment and the little buggers have eaten a few more things since I bought the place, the other had termite damage, no termites and evidence of treatment. Fixing the termite damage cost about $2000. Fixing the termite damage in this house is Too Hard so I'm just trying to ignore it.

 

[Novar]

We have to have our house termite treated, it's being done in January.
We had renovations done and didn't realise the plan stipulated termite treatment before the verandah slab went down, would have been the easier option then.

Being an older wood home, at least we know we're protected even though I hate spreading poisons around.

It's not always a bad thing and like others said, there's a lot of positives.

 

[twobobsworth]

they had a house treated and lost the paperwork.

Yep had a townhouse once where I fortunately "lost" the paperwork.

Can't remember what it said, something about the need to replace 4 internal walls and a laundry floor.

 

[ChrisLang]

Thank you all for responding so quickly! You guys are amazing.

"Termite treatment" sounds pretty vague.. for all you know there is no termite damage and the treatment was just a preventative measure?

I should have clarified this - there was definitely termite activity and that was the reason for the treatment, it wasn't a preventative measure. My friends are worried not as much about the damage to timber, as to the whole "reputation" thing. Wouldn't a house with such past be hard to sell later? This is why I asked should they lower the price, because the house is kind of "damaged goods" (even if all the actual damage was fixed).

And it's almost impossible to use the b/p clause because in the standard contract note in Victoria it says "signs of major infestation" and they will can't produce a letter from pest inspector about a major infestation because there was no spotted live termites.

 

[ChrisLang]

We have to have our house termite treated, it's being done in January.
We had renovations done and didn't realise the plan stipulated termite treatment before the verandah slab went down, would have been the easier option then.

Being an older wood home, at least we know we're protected even though I hate spreading poisons around.

It's not always a bad thing and like others said, there's a lot of positives.

You and RumpledElf are right, termite treatment is a great thing when done as preventative measure, but in this case it was done because of termite activity - which is not the end of the world, but honestly - if you were to choose between two similar houses, one that had termites and another that didn't, what would you choose? Rhetorical question.

 

[vbplease]

My friends are worried not as much about the damage to timber, as to the whole "reputation" thing. Wouldn't a house with such past be hard to sell later?

Unless floorboards need replacing the next buyer may not know that there was any damage... The next b/p inspector could note that some timber is newer thans others, but as long as its all in A1 condition, with termite treatment, caps on the stumps etc. it shouldn't be a problem. Keep in mind all houses need repair/maintenance at some stage.

And it's almost impossible to use the b/p clause because in the standard contract note in Victoria it says "signs of major infestation" and they will can't produce a letter from pest inspector about a major infestation because there was no spotted live termites.

Really? I'm interested to know the exact wording in the contract.

Your friends b/p check has just served its purpose perfectly. Its revealed damage (not noticeable to the untrained eye) requiring a certain cost that now makes the purchase unviable. The QLD contract says the buyer may terminate the contract if -

the inspectors report is not satisfactory to the buyer. The buyer must act reasonably.

If in Vic the damage has to be "major infestation", then you'd prob notice it without a b/p check anyway... makes me think the check in Vic is a waste of time.

 

[kaf]

T
I should have clarified this - there was definitely termite activity and that was the reason for the treatment, it wasn't a preventative measure. My friends are worried not as much about the damage to timber, as to the whole "reputation" thing. Wouldn't a house with such past be hard to sell later? This is why I asked should they lower the price, because the house is kind of "damaged goods" (even if all the actual damage was fixed).

I think the "reputation" thing depends on the style of the building. I've heard bad things about a concrete slab brick building with a termite history. It can mean there are cracks in the slab which allows the termites to get in anywhere to set up a nest and you'll have a hard and expensive time keeping your chemical barrier up and running all the time.

With timber buildings (like the Queenslanders I'm familiar with) or other construction types that are build above ground I wouldn't be worried about a termite history (as long as there isn't major damage done to the house already). As long as the poles of the house have barrier caps, there is no timber touching the ground directly (or lots of stuff like timber and cardboard sitting on the floor), no permanent source of water the animals can get to and I can visually inspect regularly I'm happy. Termites are everywhere and can re-infest anytime. Especially in a drought they will be drawn to buildings if your house has some source of water they can reach.

Hope that helps

Cheers

kaf

 

[ChrisLang]

I think the "reputation" thing depends on the style of the building. I've heard bad things about a concrete slab brick building with a termite history. It can mean there are cracks in the slab which allows the termites to get in anywhere to set up a nest and you'll have a hard and expensive time keeping your chemical barrier up and running all the time.

kaf

Thanks Kaf, that's exactly the case - concrete slab brick-veneer house

 

[Hoffy]

Thanks Kaf, that's exactly the case - concrete slab brick-veneer house

From what I have been told by my pest bloke, the older ones are very safe and they never experience any problems due to the treatment they used to use 20+ years ago. He tells me the older treatments are no longer allowed due to essentially being too toxic.

 

[ChrisLang]

Really? I'm interested to know the exact wording in the contract.

Your friends b/p check has just served its purpose perfectly. Its revealed damage (not noticeable to the untrained eye) requiring a certain cost that now makes the purchase unviable. T

If in Vic the damage has to be "major infestation", then you'd prob notice it without a b/p check anyway... makes me think the check in Vic is a waste of time.

Can't remember the exact wording, because I always have that standard clause changed on my contracts, so that I could cancel my offer if the report is not to my satisfaction. My friends' REA objected to them changing the contract and unfortunately they went along with that, signed the original contract and now because there is no signs of major infestation, can't get out of it. Arrrggghhh.

And yes, you're right, those who sign the standard contract may as well skip the pest inspection, it's a waste of time.

 

[ChrisLang]

From what I have been told by my pest bloke, the older ones are very safe and they never experience any problems due to the treatment they used to use 20+ years ago. He tells me the older treatments are no longer allowed due to essentially being too toxic.

I wish it was the case, but although the house is 25+ years old, the treatment was recent, 3-4 years ago.

 

[ethereal]

My friend also bought a house built around 25 years ago, brick on a slab, and had no issuses on a B & P, but... 6 months later she fell through a wall. Had treatment and repairs. Her bathroom is being renovated now and when they pulled off the wall sheeting, everything timber on every wall had been chewed, ply, hardwood and pine framing. Very bad, very scary.

 

[Hoffy]

Yeah I've seen it too. Though most times I've seen it, it has been to do with an addition of an untreated slab verandah/carport, or a garden up against the house.

 

[Zeddy]

I think they are essentially two keys things to consider. If I could attempt to summarise the general direction of all the posts:

1) Is there an active termite presence?

2) What is the severity of the damage?

You have indicated there is no sign of current active infestation. Surely the pest inspector can give indicative advice on the degree of damage. Pricing for repair would require some builder know how, however.

If the works required to replace the damaged members is not excessive, perhaps they could negotiate with the vendor a price to reflect the extra $$$ necessary to make the house good.

If the costs are excessive... time to bail.

 

[ChrisLang]

Just wanted to thank you all for the help. My friends couldn't bail after all and they will have to buy that house. All because the standard contract in Victoria says that it can only be ended if pest inspections uncovers a major infestation, and in this case it wasn't major.

So first home buyers, do yourselves a favor and change the standard contract so that you could end it if you don't like the reports. Otherwise, like vbplease said, there is no point in pest inspection.

And another thing - get a lawyer to check the contract, not a conveyancer. In their case they asked their conveyancer: "The estate agent doesn't want us to change the contract, if we leave it as it is, will it be alright?" and she said yes. Obviously she either doesn't care or has no idea what the consequences of her "advice" are to the couple who get stuck with a house they don't want to buy anymore.

Sorry for the vent, it just makes me angry to see how they had the experience of buying the first home ruined by sneaky REA and stupid negligent ignorant conveyancer.