Who should pay?

[Griddera]

I'll keep it short! I'm in the early process of buying a house, it was on for £900k, I offered £880k which was accepted.

During investigations, it's been highlighted that the septic tank at the house does not meet current regulations (I paid for an independent survey) and I've had 3 quotes for installing a new system, the cheapest of the 3 quotes is £21,000.

In your opinion:

1. I, the buyer, should continue and pay for a new system after moving in
2. The seller should reduce price by £21,000
3. The seller should upgrade the system prior to buyer moving in
4. The buyer and seller split cost 50/50

Appreciate thoughts!

@Griddera as we were paying we got 3 quotes and went with the one that was reasonable and could actually do the work in a reasonable timescale.

This was May 2021, just after the rules changed (they weren't well advertised!) and Covid had delayed things.

Ours was £14k for a 5 bed house, so we paid £7k up front and then reduced the price by £7k. I know the installer was kicking himself, as by the time the buyer had it installed (which was the first time he could do it 4 months later) the prices had increased a lot so I'm not surprised at £21k

2,3 or 5 (5 is - you find another house)

Do you really want this house?
Can u afford to back out?
Can u afford to pay?

Personally I would either ask they sort it but agree to pay another 10k on the house or agree to continue and you sort it but reduce by 10k.

This is the vendor’s problem, not yours.
If they want it to become your problem, then they need to pay you (reduce the price by) the full costs to rectify it.

Although, you should verify whether your ‘new system’ quote is entirely required by law, or is rectifying the issue including a further upgrade.
The vendor should be liable for the legally required bit, as they should have done it already.

I would be looking for another property.
If there were two previous sales that had fallen through I would be having a conversation with the agents as to why. Very underhand of the agents if it was because of the above.

Option 2.

They had a legal duty to do this. Them putting it on you is unacceptable. Don't take this on yourself. If they want to question the quotes you have had, they can get their own quotes.

You could shop should once you have the property.

The agents gave the reason that the first buyer simply pulled out with no explanation and the second one pulled out a week before exchange as they lost their job.

No idea how truthful that is!

I think this is how I'll approach it.

I'll say my solicitor is insisting it's legally up to date prior to exchanging and leave the solution with them to find/sort.

I've already put the main survey on hold now and instructed my solicitor to not send for searches yet so I'll keep looking at other houses in the meantime...

If legally it should have been changed then no, I wouldn't want to pay for that as the buyer. I wouldn't trust the seller to replace it so would ask for the money off the sale.

My mum bought a house with a supposedly almost new and functional septic tank (shared with neighbour). Turned out to be in need of immediate replacement as it was unsuitable/bodged. Cost £13k a few years ago. They've had no end of trouble with the new one since.

If it became illegal (and subject to potential fines) before you put your offer in, I would say they should be sorting it or reducing the price to cover you sorting it (possible more due to the hassle factor)

Reduce your offer by 21k

I would also consider your options and preferences regarding the upgrading / replacement of the tank... do you want them to fix it with a solution you are not entirely happy with.. ie paying £5k to relocate when you want / need a bigger one or need a different type of system.. also, do you want to bear the risk of fines / future price increases.

(We were burned by requiring our sellors to rectify something before a sale but being hit with higher costs later because they did not address the cause or recitfy the other issues they would have seen while doing the required work.. we were naive, they did as was asked of them).

If you reduce the price by £21K... and this was covered by the mortgage, will the bank lend you the £21k as part of the mortgage to pay for the works? Otherwise you could find yourself with a reduction on the price of the house but still not being able to pay for the work required.

I would aim for them paying so reducing the price for you or best and final being 50/50.

If it's the only house you want to live in and you can't face the possibility of them saying no then I guess you'd have no choice but to pay yourself.

Silence from EA now...

Contact the EA today and tell them you want a response today, as you are now considering pulling out of the purchase.
And really do consider that.
They should have sorted this out, it was their legal responsibility to do so, and I suspect that’s why the previous potential buyers pulled out.

I'd think reduce the price by 21,000 and you do the work when you've bought the house.

Sounds a lot more hassle than I could deal with. Presuming both parties thought original offer was fair before the tank issue was highlighted I'd want a minimum of 21k off (the cost of the work) plus a few thousand more for the inconvenience of the work....or if they're prepared to do the work themselves (now) I'd give them say 3 months to complete.

How did things turn out, OP?

It's the general binding rules that came I to effect 2020. It is to restricted households releasing sewage into a watercourse. Doesn't stop the water companies though. The problem is, it is all very vague.
We replaced our system during renovation and it cost us £5k for the installation of the STP (3 toilets up to 4 people), we did the rest of the groundwork. The discharge from the STP is relatively clean and is, in our case, discharged to ground to soak away.
£21k seems steep and should probably be queried. I would go for the seller doing the work as per the requirements of the GBR

I would do some more checking. Many new regulations are not retrospectively enforceable. So while the system doesn't meet current regs, it may be perfectly serviceable and compliant with the regs that were enforceable when it was installed.