in queensland the buyer needs insurance from the day the contract is signed. yes odd i know but that's how it is.
Settling on a house that might be flooded...or worse
- Thread starter orbitor
- Start date
in queensland the buyer needs insurance from the day the contract is signed. yes odd i know but that's how it is.
When I spoke to claims, they went and checked and came back and told me they would pay out...
It all seems very silly. Can you imagine agreeing to buy someone's car, and then they crash it the next day before you hand over the cash, and you're responsible for the cost?!?
From my understanding, the structure of transferring property, while different in each state, we do share some things, which we inherited as we operate under the westminister system. The reason, that buyers insure, is effectively, they are contracting to buy land, which is very accurately described, and then there is simple reference to their being a building on the land. The reason a buyer is asked to insure, is that they are considered to have an equitable interest in the land, via the contract. I do believe that the seller does not have to warrant the adequacy or otherwise of their insurance cover from sale to settlement, and a buyer can only withdraw, if an event occurs and the property is no longer habitable. That expressions is quite wide, and hence room for a lot of arguement. In this situation, I would see if the sellers claim on their insurance is successful first, and then revert to my policy. I do not like to have claims on my policies where I can.
No me neither, as other than the excess (~$750-1000) it also has an effects your premium. But I asked my insurance company what the situation was and they said in this situation in QLD they are the ones to accept the claim. You would think they wouldn't say that if they thought they had a chance of having the other party pay right?
Think about it this way, you will end up with new carpet, paint, possibly doors etc, so depending on what the house looked like before, you may benifit from it.
if the water has gone up the walls you want to have the jib board replaced as well as the timber, if your floors are timber you may also need this repaired, otherwise it will rot and smell.
if the water has gone up the walls you want to have the jib board replaced as well as the timber, if your floors are timber you may also need this repaired, otherwise it will rot and smell.
Yes we'll be going over it with a fine tooth comb and making sure everything damaged is replaced. The house is only a few years old so everything was in tip-top condition previously anyway.
heh, and now a new problem - the brisbane offices of the bank we're using is still flooded and out of commission. going to have to get ANOTHER extension on settlement.
If you can, get some evidence that the property isn't inundated ready in advance of getting hold of your bank.
Phew, what a week. My assessor has been to check the damage, and they will pay up for most stuff, but aren't convinced they need to front up for the carpet, which they regard as contents and therefore the vendor's responsibility...ugh.
They're going to check this out more though, but I don't have time for them to muck about - settlement is tomorrow!
Should I direct my solicitor to hold back $1000 to cover carpets (1 bedroom's worth) in the event my insurance says it's the vendor's problem?!?
They're going to check this out more though, but I don't have time for them to muck about - settlement is tomorrow!
Should I direct my solicitor to hold back $1000 to cover carpets (1 bedroom's worth) in the event my insurance says it's the vendor's problem?!?
Yes.
As far as you know, your insurance won't cover you for the carpets, or they would have included it in the claim now.
Better safe than sorry.
Yes I think you're right. I'm already out of pocket a grand to cover the insurance claim for the building. I don't want to be left high and dry regarding the carpet.
What's the chance of you renegotiating on the contract? Where I'm heading is if I had a property under contract and it got hit by flood I'd be thinking why not go 2
Streets over pay the same and not take the risk
IMO you're going to see these places not covered by insurers and people not having the resources to fix them up
So the question I suppose I have for you is say you settle, then you go to sell it in a few years. Purchasers come through and ask if it was affected by flood. Agent says yes. Will that impact on sale price?
Streets over pay the same and not take the risk
IMO you're going to see these places not covered by insurers and people not having the resources to fix them up
So the question I suppose I have for you is say you settle, then you go to sell it in a few years. Purchasers come through and ask if it was affected by flood. Agent says yes. Will that impact on sale price?
If I were the vendor, nil.
Seriously, you have an unconditional contract, orbitor has no such right.The heights of all properties is publicly available information. Nothing about the properties has changed; just people's perception of the likelihood of flood. Whilst acknowledging that this affects market sentiment, it's not a change to the property which reopens negotiations on an unconditional contract.Spectre said:
If I were the vendor, nil.
Yep and I have no intention of getting out of the contract or anything like that. I still definitely want the property. The property is up a hill, it won't ever flood - but obviously excessive rain can still get in in the right circumstances, just like with any property.
Let's take floods etc. out of the picture. The fact is on pre-settlement inspection, the property was not in the condition that it was when inspected. How it came to not be in the same condition is kind of irrelevant isn't it?
So this must count for something right? Otherwise what is the point of a pre-settlement inspection?
I've called some carpet companies and it appears my estimate of around $1000 to re-carpet the room is quite accurate.
OK, now I'm convinced my insurance co has it wrong. The contract (standard REIQ) clearly states the Property is at my risk from contract signing. I acquired adequate house and contents insurance for this reason.
Now the contract also clearly states that the definition of Property includes carpets. Therefore if the Property is at my risk, the carpets are at my risk too. My conveyancer agrees, though this doesn't represent legal advice.
I will tell the insurance co. to pay up or I shall raise a complaint with the Insurance Ombudsman Service and seek legal advice.
Now the contract also clearly states that the definition of Property includes carpets. Therefore if the Property is at my risk, the carpets are at my risk too. My conveyancer agrees, though this doesn't represent legal advice.
I will tell the insurance co. to pay up or I shall raise a complaint with the Insurance Ombudsman Service and seek legal advice.
Hopefully you did take contents out as well. Mentality being some say that carpet isnt part of the building. Its a content. So if you only did building and not contents then you might be SOL.
Often with cover notes people only do building then move the contents across after they get in.
Often with cover notes people only do building then move the contents across after they get in.
<My bolding>
If this is the case you should be right. Carpets are considered contents. If you simply got Buildings cover then you may be out of pocket.
EDIT: Just saw what Spectre wrote. Agree 100%
