Grrrr

[HenryDorsetCase]

Thought I'd sold me house. Then today the buyers cancelled due to solicitor's approval not forthcoming. Can't build a garage round the back because it would be too close to the gully which has environmental protection...


Bastards!

Attachment 229593

I always tell my clients that it might be unconditional, but it isn't sold till you have the money.

[HenryDorsetCase]

This is the second time a buyer has backed out. I'm starting to think the house has a juju on it...

Do I need to disclose? I would have though everyone round here would've known about the gully protection. Council makes enough noise about it...we'll see.

Oh well, come July the bank will chuck me out anyway. Better go check out under that bridge...

I wouldnt: they are probably getting that information from their LIM report.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I doubt there is a need to disclose the info if you don't know about the intention to build garage.

HOWEVER, due to a law change about 2 years ago, the buyer can now sue the agent involved for failing to disclose information that affects the value of the property (previously the law did not allow agents to be sued).

And if the buyer based there price on being able to build a garage, and the agent knows this, and knowing withholds information that they wont be able to, then I think the agent would be in a risky position.

Real estate agents now have a duty of disclosure, and their personal cheque book is on the line if they don't.

well it did, and they were.

but you are right in that the REAA 2008 is much tougher on the agent than the previous version.

[p.dath]

well it did, and they were.

Didn't the law limit the amount that could be sued for to some paltry value, like hundreds of dollars, and that limit has now been greatly increased to hundreds of thousands of dollars? Effectively very few agents got sued as a result. It was just too hard.

And didn't the law require you to use some ineffective self appointed self governed realtor's group who hardly ever ruled against the members who appointed them (which is what prompted up the tightening of the law in this area), and the new law change gives the buyer the ability to go to someone completely independent now (a QC if I can remember correctly) to get rulings?

Bit hazy in my memory.

[ckai]

Thing is, it is obvious if you know about it. I had never heard of gully protection before this thread. So to me it would have never occurred to even ask.
Funny how things are very obvious to some but not others.

Sorry I was meaning it's dumb what does and doesn't need to be disclosed. Not that everyone should know what gully protection is. I should have made it a new line

It's so hit and miss what you need to actually disclose. Rule of thumb in my view is if it affects value, disclose.

wtf is gulley protection?worlds gone mad

Hamilton city is famous for the gullies that run through it. But no one knows this Hell, I didn't know about it until I valued a property that had a gully down the back. And that was after valuing for a year! The council has a zone that covers pretty much all gullies in the city so no greedy capitalist developer can fill them up and have crap loads more land to subdivide. It preserves the natural condition of them so you don't build in the zone. Generally they're not stable soils anyway.

I valued some bloody cool houses that got permission to cantilever decks out into their gullies and planted them all out. The great thing is, no one knows what you have around the back and they're generally a nice secluded back yard.

Gully protection isn't like a Heritage Protection and that you can't do shit with the buildings. It just means the land size is generally restricted as to where you can build on it. Most properties with gully protection have a section about 1500m2 plus.

Just to clear this up.
There is indeed no need to disclose those particular building restrictions. Any building on any property is subject to council approval, permits, yaddayadda. The potential buyer's research should include all this stuff and in the case in hand, it did.
If anyone were to ask me, I would tell them what I know but would also suggest they check out with the council. Which is exactly what my buyers did. When the answer came back no, they were at liberty to abandon the agreement. Which they did. Unfortunately for me.

IN my view only the zone needs to be disclose, nothing to do what can and can't be built there. That's totally up to what gets designed for the site. You possibly could have a funky shaped garage, but you've got a garage none the less

well it did, and they were.

but you are right in that the REAA 2008 is much tougher on the agent than the previous version.

Not to mention more realistic penalties. I used to like the $200 fines some agents got given. Surely that went into the end-of-year piss up? haha

[crazyhorse]

Buggar!! Just what you didn't need.