I've name changed so I can provide more details without outing my previous threads.
The background briefly, we're buying a 1960s bungalow, the owner is deceased and the property is being sold by her solicitor, no family involved.
We had an offer accepted we were happy with, the property was taken off the market, then another buyer who had viewed and offered before us made a new offer and we had to go to best and final, increasing our offer by £7k to ensure we were successful, as my house is sold and this is the only bungalow we've seen that meets our needs.
The survey report doesn't include anything we weren't aware of really, but it values the property at exactly our original offer.
Issues include, there are no Certificates or guarantees for the gas boiler, open fire etc. and no information on them. They haven't completed the questionnaire because the owner is deceased and hasn't left any paperwork. Essentially saying it's sold as seen.
There's an extension (I'm not really worried about) that's been up I estimate 50 years, which doesn't appear (supported by searches) to have building regs, I'm sure size wise it's well within permitted development. The surveyor is happy, on visual inspection, that the flat roof is in good order but we don't know when it was last replaced.
There are polystyrene tiles on two ceilings which will need to be removed and the ceilings at least skimmed. There's an older glazed interior door which may not be safety glass and needs to be replaced (it's awful anyway).
My thoughts are to ask the solicitor to
- consider a reduction in price to our original offer (there's no mortgage involved), to provide indemnity for the extension.
- To provide a inspection report on the flat roof. - To cover the cost of having the gas appliances and open fire/chimney safety checked.
- There's a redundant boiler in the loft (pretty much impossible to remove) I'd like to ask the solicitor to either arrange to have it removed or confirm it's not a hazard.
My hope is that they at least agree to reduce the price, provide the indemnity on the extension.
Does this sound reasonable?