3 ms·

What makes it unsellable or unmoragable? I don't know how that works on the UK, but here if there is a defect in a house that requires 3300€ to fix, the house v

by forty 2y ago

What makes it unsellable or unmoragable? I don't know how that works on the UK, but here if there is a defect in a house that requires 3300€ to fix, the house value is just estimated 3300€ less than the price without the defect (or worse case scenario, you account for the value of redoing the roof if there is a risk it's needed)

btilly 2y ago
The problem is that it requires a 3300€ removal just to inspect for further damage of unknown and possibly large size. If it is large and the homeowner is unable to cope, the lender is at risk. Because tbe lenders are at risk here, they won't lend unless you do the removal so that the lender can inspect.
- maxerickson 2y ago
  Given housing prices, it seems that the 3500 is merely (potentially) wasteful and (definitely) irritating. It isn't gonna make it impossible to sell a place.
  - btilly 2y ago
    Why are you ignoring the "further damage" bit? The issue isn't the cost of the removal. It is the unknown further liability.
    - maxerickson 2y ago
      I'm saying that someone looking to shift 300000 is going to go ahead and remove the unknown. If the installation was done reasonably, they probably won't have further damage. I wasn't really meaning to ignore it, just wasn't speaking to it.
      - btilly 2y ago
        You are wrong to ignore it. Why would you ignore the very point that I'm going out of the way to explain? That's just asking to fail to understand. The person who wants to shift 300000 isn't the problem. It is the bank who is saying no to the mortgage. Banking has been described as "picking up pennies in front of a steamroller". For them, a housing mortgage has limited upside, and a large possible downside. They stay in business by avoiding hitting that downside. Therefore a property that can't be inspected property, can't get a mortgage. Full stop. The prospective buyer can't buy without a mortgage. Sure, the buyer could pay for the removal. But now you're asking the buyer to pay for a large repair, just to decide if this might be the house for them? And that payment comes out of what they could have spent on another house! This makes no sense. The only party that has the right incentive to fix the problem is the current owner. It's part of getting your house ready for sale. That sucks - they thought that they were improving their home, and they made it worse. But still, they created a problem, and nobody else is going to volunteer to help.
        maxerickson 2y ago
        It's easy to inspect the property properly though. It just costs 3500 Euros to make it possible.
        btilly 2y ago
        Congratulations. You've just arrived at the whole point of the article. The owners paid money to improve their house. Now they have to pay more to undo that if they want to have a chance of selling it. That's a rather nasty thing to be hit with when you're trying to sell your house so that you can move.
        maxerickson 2y ago
        I mean, that's where I started, I just have the unmitigated gall to call a couple of points of cost irritating.
nabla9 2y ago
7th paragraph explains it.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tialaramex 2y ago
The mortgage issuers get to decide what risks they do or do not accept and they hate unknowns. One example that often comes up is "atypical construction". Maybe you want to buy a one-of-a-kind house that some crazy architect built for himself in 1968. He didn't use any materials that are known to be unsafe, but on the other hand nobody else had ever built a home like that and no-one did since. Mortgage issuers hate that, you might find a specialist who would be willing to offer you a mortgage, but nobody on the high street will. It's not unsellable, there are a lot of private buyers, both investors who intend to rent it out and people with significant money looking to just buy outright. For example my mother moved long after retiring, obviously she can't get a mortgage, so she paid cash. However, if a mortgage will be hard to get this makes it significantly harder to find a buyer, especially if your ideal buyer is younger and not wealthy. This can depress prices.

by forty 2y ago

btilly 2y ago

The problem is that it requires a 3300€ removal just to inspect for further damage of unknown and possibly large size. If it is large and the homeowner is unable to cope, the lender is at risk. Because tbe lenders are at risk here, they won't lend unless you do the removal so that the lender can inspect.

maxerickson 2y ago
Given housing prices, it seems that the 3500 is merely (potentially) wasteful and (definitely) irritating. It isn't gonna make it impossible to sell a place.
- btilly 2y ago
  Why are you ignoring the "further damage" bit? The issue isn't the cost of the removal. It is the unknown further liability.
  - maxerickson 2y ago
    I'm saying that someone looking to shift 300000 is going to go ahead and remove the unknown. If the installation was done reasonably, they probably won't have further damage. I wasn't really meaning to ignore it, just wasn't speaking to it.
    - btilly 2y ago
      You are wrong to ignore it. Why would you ignore the very point that I'm going out of the way to explain? That's just asking to fail to understand. The person who wants to shift 300000 isn't the problem. It is the bank who is saying no to the mortgage. Banking has been described as "picking up pennies in front of a steamroller". For them, a housing mortgage has limited upside, and a large possible downside. They stay in business by avoiding hitting that downside. Therefore a property that can't be inspected property, can't get a mortgage. Full stop. The prospective buyer can't buy without a mortgage. Sure, the buyer could pay for the removal. But now you're asking the buyer to pay for a large repair, just to decide if this might be the house for them? And that payment comes out of what they could have spent on another house! This makes no sense. The only party that has the right incentive to fix the problem is the current owner. It's part of getting your house ready for sale. That sucks - they thought that they were improving their home, and they made it worse. But still, they created a problem, and nobody else is going to volunteer to help.
      - maxerickson 2y ago
        It's easy to inspect the property properly though. It just costs 3500 Euros to make it possible.
        btilly 2y ago
        Congratulations. You've just arrived at the whole point of the article. The owners paid money to improve their house. Now they have to pay more to undo that if they want to have a chance of selling it. That's a rather nasty thing to be hit with when you're trying to sell your house so that you can move.
        maxerickson 2y ago
        I mean, that's where I started, I just have the unmitigated gall to call a couple of points of cost irritating.

nabla9 2y ago

7th paragraph explains it.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

tialaramex 2y ago

The mortgage issuers get to decide what risks they do or do not accept and they hate unknowns. One example that often comes up is "atypical construction". Maybe you want to buy a one-of-a-kind house that some crazy architect built for himself in 1968. He didn't use any materials that are known to be unsafe, but on the other hand nobody else had ever built a home like that and no-one did since. Mortgage issuers hate that, you might find a specialist who would be willing to offer you a mortgage, but nobody on the high street will. It's not unsellable, there are a lot of private buyers, both investors who intend to rent it out and people with significant money looking to just buy outright. For example my mother moved long after retiring, obviously she can't get a mortgage, so she paid cash. However, if a mortgage will be hard to get this makes it significantly harder to find a buyer, especially if your ideal buyer is younger and not wealthy. This can depress prices.