(Sorry for the partial title but I clicked submit before I realised and then it was too late)
Hi all,
Its not a big issue just something that iritated me tonight when I just went to do the final inspection on my new IP that settles tomorrow.
At many inpections prior to exchage and the Vendor vacating the property there were a quantity of roof tile, floor tiles and exterior paint in the shed that were all specific to this property (same black glazed roof tiles, same 400mm x 400mm floor tiles as the 200m2 that are laid in the house and same partial remains of the exterior texture coat paint that matches the current coating). Even when I went last week for a PM inspection after the Vendor had clearly vacated the property these materials were still left behind in the shed.
I go there tonight and all is gone which doesn't make sense as the Vendor had already moved out several weeks ago and we are only talking small partial quantities that seem to have no use other than for future maintence of this property.
My issue is that the building inspection highlighted some samll issues relating to "druming tile" and the "lack of expansion joints in the internal tile floor" which could lead to cracks in tiles and "repairs required to external brick walls" that would need re-coating if done. I did not address any of these issues at exchange as I was of the undertstanding that I would have these materials to fix any issues should or if they arise. They were not included or excluded in the contract unlike a few pot plants were.
I spoke to my solicitor but it appears that the property is sold as a "vacant possession" therefore this is a grey area and he sees no recourse for me prior to settlement.
WTF.....................Not happy Jan.
Is it something that I should just let go or something that really should be addressed prior to settlement. To me its not a breach of any kind it just seems a bit unethical.
Cheers.
Hi all,
Its not a big issue just something that iritated me tonight when I just went to do the final inspection on my new IP that settles tomorrow.
At many inpections prior to exchage and the Vendor vacating the property there were a quantity of roof tile, floor tiles and exterior paint in the shed that were all specific to this property (same black glazed roof tiles, same 400mm x 400mm floor tiles as the 200m2 that are laid in the house and same partial remains of the exterior texture coat paint that matches the current coating). Even when I went last week for a PM inspection after the Vendor had clearly vacated the property these materials were still left behind in the shed.
I go there tonight and all is gone which doesn't make sense as the Vendor had already moved out several weeks ago and we are only talking small partial quantities that seem to have no use other than for future maintence of this property.
My issue is that the building inspection highlighted some samll issues relating to "druming tile" and the "lack of expansion joints in the internal tile floor" which could lead to cracks in tiles and "repairs required to external brick walls" that would need re-coating if done. I did not address any of these issues at exchange as I was of the undertstanding that I would have these materials to fix any issues should or if they arise. They were not included or excluded in the contract unlike a few pot plants were.
I spoke to my solicitor but it appears that the property is sold as a "vacant possession" therefore this is a grey area and he sees no recourse for me prior to settlement.
WTF.....................Not happy Jan.
Is it something that I should just let go or something that really should be addressed prior to settlement. To me its not a breach of any kind it just seems a bit unethical.
Cheers.
Last edited: