Settlement t'mrw. Hold back $250 for unmowed lawn/uncleared drains?

[handyandy]

Oh no! Slap forehead!
I didn't think of that, handyandy, thanks for telling me. Grateful
Now, I'll have do a washout and less piping up!

To focused on $250. If you stop slapping head you may be able to collect your thoughts.

As Wylie indicated they vendor allowed the $250 because they knew there was a more serious problem.

If the drain pipe is severely blocked - just to get it eel'd will cost $300+

Cheers

 

[ok180]

Nope, didn't wait to find out. Drain all cleared.

But it will fill back up again...

*puff ciggie

Its like a draaaiinnn that keeps filling up mannnnnnn

*puff ciggie

 

[Singo]

The drain and lawn are actually small issues. Sometimes buyers do expect them to be in good condition. I knew a REA who made the sellers to mow the lawn for final inspection! You didn't have to ask for $250, but you did, but not a big deal. The owners are away so $250 would have been a good deal for them as well. I feel they would have accepted something around $750.

The only mistake in the whole thing is posting about this here and asking for the opinion of these people here

 

[SeafordSunshine]

Gutter guard!

Dear Beanie Girl,

The place I bought first, flooded in 1984, and water was a metre high, the drain grates on the street were blocked by the garbage, (it was garbage night) and that was that.
Nowhere for the rain to go.

For the next 10 years I went out to the end of our street and cleared all the leaves and garbage over the grates... when it rained, just to keep my house safe. We were nowhere near a creek, river, or water course.
Eventually I found out I could get in touch with Sydney Water, and the local council, and started asking questions.

My house is still in 'same' location, and hasn't flooded since then. water board has re designed the drains, and council sweeps up the leaves..
just a bit of being pro active on my part helped.
I do hope this helps

 

[Beanie Girl]

Dear Beanie Girl,

The place I bought first, flooded in 1984, and water was a metre high, the drain grates on the street were blocked by the garbage, (it was garbage night) and that was that.
Nowhere for the rain to go.

For the next 10 years I went out to the end of our street and cleared all the leaves and garbage over the grates... when it rained, just to keep my house safe. We were nowhere near a creek, river, or water course.
Eventually I found out I could get in touch with Sydney Water, and the local council, and started asking questions.

My house is still in 'same' location, and hasn't flooded since then. water board has re designed the drains, and council sweeps up the leaves..
just a bit of being pro active on my part helped.
I do hope this helps

Ouch! A metre high, that's tough.

My friend who lives in Hawthorn in a worker's cottage had the same thing that happened to you happen to her. Her worker's cottage overlooks the council parkland. But Council was tardy and didn't clear the leaves from under the drain grate in the park and when fierce rains came, my friend looked up and saw this Tsunami of water rushing into her garden and swoosh into her house. It damaged all her belongings but most importantly all the news clippings and precious articles she collected over the years were destroyed.
I don't blame you if you still need to check if Council sweeps up the leaves.
I think it's still necessary to check given my friend's experience.

I have an IP in Qld that flooded because the water oozed through a wall. One of the walls is built into a hill. There was damage to the carpet and some softening of the concrete floor.

what can you do? Stuff happens. Nowadays, I try to keep in mind this saying, 'train yourself to learn to let go of everything you fear to lose'
It makes me feel more peaceful.

 

[cu@thetop]

Hello everybody, we were successful in our legal requestyour request through your lawyer- a different thing to have 250 deducted from the purchase price to clear the drains and mow the lawns.
The conveyancer wrote the request to the owner's soliciter.
The owner's solicter thought it was a fair and reasonable request given the owners were in the US and passed the request onto the owners. The owners solicitor was too overworked or not paid enough to argue the point- or the 17y.o. conveyance has not read the REIQ contract term and understood the same

The owners were happyHappy to pay something they weren't legally obligated to? send me their details and I'll hit em up for a few quid too to pay that amount for maintenance as they recognised they had been in the US for some time.
In fact, they were shocked but pleased that the amount we were asking for was so little. If you had paid above market value/asking price I could understand. Otherwise I am perplexed.

The owners thought it was a very reasonable request and granted it, no dramas.

RESULT: HAPPY OUTCOME FOR ALL The outcome was $250 happier for you

We had another thread about was it fair to forfeit a buyer's deposit under the contract and the issue seemed to come to people understanding their contractual obligations.

Nothing under the REIQ terms about mowing the lawn. As for the drain- was it blocked when you inspected- if not then I don't see any responsibility for the seller to fix it due to the nature of the issue (wind and leave fall are outside of the seller's control).If it was -well you buy as inspected so no joy there.

This forum and this thread may be a bit of tough love but you should be aware that not all vendors will be so obliging in the future. Try that request on a mortgagee sale and watch the ensuing hilarity.

 

[Beanie Girl]

wind and leave fall are outside of the seller's control.

If we use your above logic, cu@thetop, 'wind and leave fall are outside owners control' then owners shouldn't have any responsibility to keep their gutters clean

I just need to point out the inconsistencies in logic so far

If it is my responsibility as owner-landlord to keep the drains clear as everybody keeps emphasizing
Why is it not the owner's responsibility to have a reasonably clear drain when he sells to a buyer?

We are not asking for a completely clear, leafless drain. That is unreasonable to expect. Just not a drain that is three-quarters full so that it is going to flood the ground floor should a heavy rain ensue. The drains were reasonably clear when we inspected.

 

[Beanie Girl]

you should be aware that not all vendors will be so obliging in the future.

Don't worry, cu@thetop, I won't expect vendors to be so 'obliging, generous or reasonable' in future. From this thread, I have learnt a hard lesson, that it is far too much to expect. Better not to leave it to chance.

In future, I will be putting everything that I want done under 'Special Conditions' of the contract. Drains cleared, lawns mowed, belongings/junk removed etc so that there won't be any dispute.

 

[Dazz]

If it is my responsibility as owner-landlord to keep the drains clear as everybody keeps emphasizing

There's no IF about it. A link was provided for you to the exact legislation governing this particular aspect which 100% definitively places the responsibility on your shoulders as the Landlord.

Note well : The governing paperwork between the parties (Landlord and Tenant) is the RTA.

Why is it not the owner's responsibility to have a reasonably clear drain when he sells to a buyer?

cu@thetop already answered this as well for you.

There is nothing in the over-riding REIQ standard contract terms which mentions this aspect nor places the Vendor under such obligation, and clearly it ain't in the special conditions of your particular sales contract.

Note well : The governing paperwork between the parties (Seller and Buyer) is the sales contract.

In future, I will be putting everything that I want done under 'Special Conditions' of the contract. Drains cleared, lawns mowed, belongings/junk removed etc so that there won't be any dispute.

As a free adult, you are at liberty to put down whatever you so choose in your offer and then submit it to the Seller. Put in it that you wish to have the Owner's wife do a tap dance through the front tulips on settlement day if you so wish.

Whether the Seller accepts and agrees to any of your "special" conditions and therefore ultimately forms part of the Sales Contract is totally out of your control.

 

[Beanie Girl]

A link was provided for you to the exact legislation governing this particular aspect which 100% definitively places the responsibility on your shoulders as the Landlord.

Note well : The governing paperwork between the parties (Landlord and Tenant) is the RTA.

There is nothing in the over-riding REIQ standard contract terms which mentions this aspect nor places the Vendor under such obligation, and clearly it ain't in the special conditions of your particular sales contract.

Note well : The governing paperwork between the parties (Seller and Buyer) is the sales contract.

Thanks Dazz for the RTA link, I appreciate it and the lesson 'if it ain't in the sales contract, the buyer has no case!' Thanks to cu@thetop too!

 

[geoffw]

I'm interested to know, in a general sense, the legal situation.

I had thought that at settlement the place should be substantially in the same condition as it was at exchange.

So in this case, if the drains were clear and the lawns mowed- or for instance if a hot water service was installed and working- then at settlement those items should be in a similar state.

I'd be surprised if the drains had become blocked in a few weeks, but if it was on record that the drains were clear, is it the vendor's responsibility to bring them back to that state?

Of course this may differ on a state by state basis.

 

[Peterw]

I'm interested to know, in a general sense, the legal situation.

I had thought that at settlement the place should be substantially in the same condition as it was at exchange.

So in this case, if the drains were clear and the lawns mowed- or for instance if a hot water service was installed and working- then at settlement those items should be in a similar state.

I'd be surprised if the drains had become blocked in a few weeks, but if it was on record that the drains were clear, is it the vendor's responsibility to bring them back to that state?

Of course this may differ on a state by state basis.

Geoff, I think the problem then arises is the "fair wear and tare accepted" which will impact on what is considered reasonable since the property was viewed prior to contract. There is no doubt having clauses will minimise the surprises.

 

[geoffw]

Geoff, I think the problem then arises is the "fair wear and tare accepted" which will impact on what is considered reasonable since the property was viewed prior to contract. There is no doubt having clauses will minimise the surprises.

Ok.

So does "wear and tare" mean that you have to weigh the property when it's empty? ;-)

 

[Beanie Girl]

Geoff, I think the problem then arises is the "fair wear and tare accepted" which will impact on what is considered reasonable since the property was viewed prior to contract. There is no doubt having clauses will minimise the surprises.

We signed the contract 'sight unseen' just based on the description, pictures and location. We signed the contract in Melbourne, the owners signed the contract in the US.

2 days later, we conducted the building inspection and pest inspection and that's where we observed the lawns mowed and the drains pretty clear.
The building inspector stressed to us at the time that the drains needed to be fairly clear at all times

Of course, there were repairs needed like loose kitchen doors, siliconing needed in the bathroom stall, balustrade needed bolting down for safety etc but as these were needed repairs noted in the building inspection report, it's 'fair and tear', I believe. Those were repairs we were prepared to make ourselves, no dispute there.

I don't know if this helps. Just clarifying that the viewing and building/pest inspection was carried out after contract signed.

 

[Dazz]

So in this case, if the drains were clear and the lawns mowed- or for instance if a hot water service was installed and working- then at settlement those items should be in a similar state.

Two words spring to mind that makes this different Geoff. Passive and disastrous.

.....fair enough....if the HWS isn't working at settlement, # 1 it is an active problem that is plainly apparent and can be tested immediately by turning on the hot water tap. # 2 if it isn't working, the entire property value is not compromised.

What Beanie Girl is talking about is an idle drain simply sitting there. It's passive. You won't know it's not working unless there is a huge downpour and it's needed pronto. If it's a bright and sunny day, it will lie dormant waiting passively "not to work". You can't really simulate or check that it's working or not at settlement - especially if you are in another state.

The second thing is, unlike your HWS example, if it fails when it's needed, apparently, given the lie of the land and the exact placement of the drain, the entire house is inundated and huge dollars and inconvenience to a sitting Tenant will ensue.....many times that of a cold shower for a day or two.

Drains can be very problematic if they don't flow as they are designed to. If this fear that Beanie Girl has is real and substantiated, she'd be wise to spend some dollars to rectify the design such that the entire drain isn't so susceptible to a few leaves falling in a few weeks. If that is all that it takes to cripple an essential system that has to work when it rains hard, then the system design is too weak and needs beefing up - passively via design. Relying on a Tenant to actively keep the system going continually is not a plan.

 

[pinkboy]

Dazz, you just don't get it do you? Beanie Girl got her $250 and 'won'!

pinkboy

 

[Beanie Girl]

What Beanie Girl is talking about is an idle drain simply sitting there. It's passive. You won't know it's not working unless there is a huge downpour and it's needed pronto. If it's a bright and sunny day, it will lie dormant waiting passively "not to work". You can't really simulate or check that it's working or not at settlement - especially if you are in another state.

Dazz, I can't see and I can't check, true, but my Building Inspector doing the pre-settlement inspection is 'my eyes' and 'my checker'. He checks everything, with his eyes, hands, logic, knowledge and has the necessary experience to see that the drains are sufficiently filled with 'gunk' and if a heavy downpour ensues, the water not being able to flow through the drain, has the potential to flood the ground floor by flowing under the gap in the front door and gaps under the sliding doors. It won't inundate the ground floor to a metre high but water will certainly wet the floor and carpet substantially, enough to cause $$$$ damage. Inundation is not necessary to cause water damage or significant $$$$ damage. A constant sitting pool of water on a tiled/concrete floor can soften the concrete, I know this from it happening to one of my other IPs in Qld.

 

[geoffw]

All I'm talking about is having the property in the same state it was in when exchange took place- apart from "fair wear and tear" which has been mentioned by misspelled.

If a property has been presented to me as a buyer in a certain state, I expect that property to be in the same state when I settle- apart from fair wear and tear. If it's going to cost me money to bring it back to that state then I should be able to claim that cost.

If the drains were truly clear and later were not- that would take a small amount of time to fix- but would also indicate a much bigger problem which should be fixed. Perhaps a pipe is blocked or perhaps there is an overhanging tree.

Either way, either issue may possibly be regarded as fair wear and tear, and the seller may have been within his rights to refuse to pay- depending on the legal definition of wear and year. But bigger issues may be more clear cut. That's why I raised the issue of condition between exchange and settlement as a question.

 

[pinkboy]

A constant sitting pool of water on a tiled/cement floor can soften the cement

Now I've heard everything!

pinkboy

 

[Hoffy]

Now I've heard everything!

pinkboy

I should have gone for the fibreglass pool option rather than the concrete one.