We're buying a house for the first time, and we get the impression that the vendor's solicitor (and thus the vendor) is getting very irritated with our solicitor's thoroughness. He sent of the order of 50 enquiries, and though the vendor's solicitor has been pretty lax in his responses, our solicitor does seem to be repeatedly asking about things that, as far as we can tell, don't matter that much (e.g. requesting planning notices when we've already been provided with completion certificates, and requesting historical conveyances from the mid-1900s).
There are a couple of things that have given us pause, such as an old loft conversion that is not "habitable" by today's standards and was (apparently incorrectly) advertised as a bedroom (though it complied with regulations at the time, so perhaps it's actually fine?). There is also a first floor-level terrace with no documentation, as it was apparently there when the current owners moved in, which is likely not allowed according to current regulations, and may not have even been allowed at the time (we just don't know). But since it's been there for many years, and pre-dates the current owners, would the lack of documentation be a big issue here? It wasn't the reason we chose the house.
Our solicitor is recommending that we try to knock ~4% off the agreed price, on the basis that the house was over-valued by treating the loft conversion as a bedroom, and that there are a few things without complete documentation. But we're really unsure this would be sensible in the current climate, or even if it's reasonable given the circumstances. Are the things I've described the sort that would drive others to negotiate?
He is also saying he expects prices to drop significantly in the relatively near term, and that he thinks we're overpaying on this place, given the issues mentioned above (though we're wondering if we'd encounter these sorts of things in any older house?).
We have no prior experience of this sort of thing, so we don't know what is normal or expected. But the estate agent has told us that he thinks the vendor is more likely to pull out of the sale than negotiate at this point — especially as they feel they've already been asked too many questions. Of course he might just be saying that because it's in his interest to do so, but it seems risky to test it.
I think I just want to understand what is reasonable here. Would you expect to be able to negotiate based on the things mentioned above? Is our solicitor being overzealous? Do most people go ahead with purchases at the original agreed price, even when there are question marks around building regulations compliance of work from decades ago? It seems that our solicitor wants to leave no stone unturned, and nothing unaccounted for, which ordinarily I'd say was a good thing, but I'm wondering if that's realistic here, and if we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot by taking the same approach.