Forced to Buy a Burnt-down Property

L[Deactivated] on 21/03/2022 - 09:52
Last edited 23/03/2022 - 15:24

Hi all,

I am new and joined because I am in a bit of trouble.

I bought a house, and I thought I was lucky enough to win the auction.

However, two weeks after the auction, before the settlement date, the owner had an accident in the kitchen and burnt down almost the entire kitchen. All the cabinets, some walls, and some part of the roof. There is basically a hole on the roof and signs of smokes everywhere. Walls between the kitchen and living room is half gone, the window is broken, and water damage from the fire engine is on every part of floorings and walls. The damage so extensive they moved out straight away.

Now, here is my problem starts.
I then called the real estate agent to cancel the deal. They said they will try their best, calling the owner and see what they can do.
The agent said the owner didn't answer their phone and told me to call my solicitor.

I called my solicitor to cancel the deal obviously.
Here is what he said:
Have you got building insurance? I said no of course, because I haven't settled on it.
My lawyer said the once I won an auction, it is my property, and I have to settle on it, no matter what.
I said, what the F, BS is this??? It is obvious to me that the house is not at all in the same condition it was when it is sold to me. My lawyer said he need to discuss with his colleagues for whatever other legal avenue available. Worse come to worse, he said I lost my 10% deposit. However he also said that if the house then sold at lower price (which is 100% definitely), I may have to pay for the difference. I said again all the swear words known to me. This could costs me hundreds of thousands, plus I can't live there, what am I gonna do with this?

I don't know yet if the owner has building insurance, or if their insurance companies can pay me out.

Sorry for all the rambling, but I just can't.

Edit: 11:41am
Seller's solicitor told mine that the owner have insurance. However it is unclear what will. happen after. I'm a little relieved now.

Edit 11:53 AM:
It seems that the seller meant was content insurance, not building insurance, however it still isn't very clear, and they seek clarification.

Edit 12:05 AM:
Apparently police is investigating this because it involves significant material damage.
Idk what this mean to me tbh.

Edit 2:57 PM:
They definitely have building insurance. However I think perhaps it is still best to back out of the sale, let them deal with the payout and sell it to someone else who can rebuild it. Otherwise, it can be messy for me waiting for them to sort their insurance and transfer the payout to me.

Edit 23/03 3:19 PM:
Vendor's solicitor seems to hold on to the 'unconditional' rule. My instruction to the lawyer is clear, do not settle no matter what. I have told the bank's lender too, and they don't seem to know what to do? I don't know what the vendor want, my solicitor thinks it could be that they want to hold on to insurance payout and full payment too. My solicitor thinks it may gone down to court, but i am more likely to win. I hope this doesn't go on too long, I need a place to live…

Home & Garden

Comments

      • chid on 21/03/2022 - 14:30
        +2

        I mean even with an auction (at least in NSW) there will still typically be a pre-settlement inspection

        • bio on 21/03/2022 - 14:39

          That's what I've read in this thread. Apparently it's different in QLD.

          • tensionday on 24/03/2022 - 23:04
            +1

            @bio: Nope. Just bought and sold at auction in QLD. Presettlement inspections are a thing

      • od810 on 21/03/2022 - 16:57
        +1

        That subject clause usually lasts for 10 15 days during the cooling off period after contract signing. Essentially auction has 0 cooling off period. OP's situation has nothing to do with private/auction sale.

        The property should be in the same state as when you sign the contract.

  • dust on 21/03/2022 - 10:11
    +36

    My lawyer said the once I won an auction, it is my property, and I have to settle on it, no matter what.

    100% untrue. Get a new lawyer.

    • life is suffering on 21/03/2022 - 10:17
      +4

      That's some nasty argument from OWN lawyer. Jesus

      • dust on 21/03/2022 - 10:18
        +1

        Doesn't make sense unless the lawyer is total sh*t or is in cahoots with the original house owner.

        • [Deactivated] on 21/03/2022 - 10:22
          +1

          I can't find article to support or unsupport this tbh.

          • dust on 21/03/2022 - 10:25
            +17

            @[Deactivated]: Took me 30 seconds to find on google. Link here

            On the morning of settlement day, you should conduct a final inspection of the property to ensure it is in the same condition as when contracts were exchanged.

            • [Deactivated] on 21/03/2022 - 10:32
              +6

              @dust: Thanks but, just below that line:

              Different rules apply when buying property at auction. Further information can be found on the buying property at an auction page.
              Further information is available on the sale contracts page.

              and then in the link that follows:

              Auctions differ from private sales as there is no cooling-off period:
              after the seller and buyer exchange contracts
              if contracts are exchanged on the same day as the auction after the property has been passed in.
              If you are bidding at an auction, you must be ready to exchange contracts and complete the sale. Otherwise, you will lose your deposit and may be liable for any damages suffered by the vendor.

              • dust on 21/03/2022 - 10:37
                +16

                @[Deactivated]: Settlement day is not the same as cooling off period. The property wasn't yours yet. When you settle (i.e. when the property becomes yours) you have the right to check that the property is in the same condition and as it was on fire, it definitely was not in the same condition.

              • MrFrugalSpend on 21/03/2022 - 20:33
                +2

                @[Deactivated]: Read the actual contract you signed, not random tripe off the internet - it will say who's responsibility it is

    • AndyC1 on 21/03/2022 - 11:02
      +10

      Your lawyer is a lazy piece of doggy doo doo.

      You need a new lawyer as you can and should be able to get out of the contract as you bought the house as it was at the auction. Up until settlement day you do NOT own the land or house.

    • [Deactivated] on 21/03/2022 - 10:24
      +9

      Lawyer: A person with a certificate to practice Law. This includes Solicitors, Barristers, Judges and Corporate Counsel.
      Solicitor: A person with a practising certificate that is not a Barrister or Judge.
      Barrister: A Lawyer that passed the Bar Examination. They appear in Court on behalf of people and run technical arguments.

      Source: https://roselaw.com.au/resources/solicitor-vs-lawyer-in-aust…

    • djkelly69 on 21/03/2022 - 10:27
      +15

      Solicitor and lawyer are used interchangeably in Australia. Are you thinking of conveyancer vs lawyer/solicitor?

      • cocomelon on 21/03/2022 - 10:37

        my bad yes, was referring to conveyancer, type a comment on my phone while waiting for my coffee lol

        • Keeegs on 21/03/2022 - 16:19
          +1

          What does the typing medium got to do with confusing solicitor/conveyancer?

          • kiitos on 22/03/2022 - 14:59
            +1

            @Keeegs: "mitigating circumstances, your honour"

  • Hellfire on 21/03/2022 - 10:22
    +19

    Just bought a house at auction (NSW) and have been told the exact opposite of you. Building insurance only required after settlement and if it is not in the same condition as when I won the auction then I can cancel the purchase (and get my deposit back in full).

    • Slippery Fish on 21/03/2022 - 13:13
      +15

      Should post your lawyers info for op.

      • johnwinkle on 22/03/2022 - 19:29
        +2

        and op should let us know which lawyer to avoid

    • chriise on 21/03/2022 - 14:12

      What do you think constitutes “not in the same condition”? Obviously fire, but wondering what else fits the bill, as that advice is pretty vague.

      • gyrex on 21/03/2022 - 14:20
        +4

        Anything outside 'fair wear and tear'.

        • GrueHunter on 21/03/2022 - 17:04
          +1

          “No, we were always going to rip out the kitchen and take it with us”

      • Hellfire on 21/03/2022 - 14:50
        +1

        I was concerned with the house flooding or suffering water/storm damage. The advice was that if it was minor differences we could delay settlement until the vendor sorted it out. It wouldn't be worth taking to court over anything minor because the most likely outcome was the judge allowing more time for the vendor to rectify. And we'd be up for our legal fees. So we may need to just wear any extra costs to repair. But for significant damage it would be a no brainer to pull out of the sale.

      • geoffs87 on 21/03/2022 - 15:25
        +3

        Look at it this way - my lawyers advised me that if i remove tv brackets from my walls, the holes need to be repaired and painted prior to settlement. I imagine they would have had a heart attack if I burnt my house down before settlement…

    • derrida derider on 22/03/2022 - 12:26

      Correct for NSW, but it does vary from state to state. OP definitely needs a better lawyer to tell him what the score is in his own state.

  • tephra on 21/03/2022 - 10:22
    +1

    Didn't your bank, assuming your getting finance, require you to show proof of building insurance?

    edit, I see your NSW, so perhaps not required.

    • [Deactivated] on 21/03/2022 - 10:24

      I have no idea about this.

    • one man clan on 21/03/2022 - 11:04
      +2

      Not required until you can take possession of the property

  • saitaris on 21/03/2022 - 10:30
    +11

    In NSW responsibility for the property does not pass to the buyer until settlement. However, when I bought (also NSW) my solicitor advised I take out building insurance against it as soon as the contract was unconditional, I suppose for exactly situations like this.

    Seek alternative legal advice. I am not a lawyer, but what your lawyer has sold you sounds like it may be applicable for QLD (which, as posted earlier in the thread sees liability for the property pass to the buyer before settlement) but for NSW, at the very least the seller should be responsible for bearing the cost to fix it, even if you are still liable to settle. Again, not a lawyer.

  • apsilon on 21/03/2022 - 10:30
    +1

    Damn, what a terrible situation to be in. Definitely sounds like you need a second opinion given the potential cost so I'd suggest speaking to a solicitor that specialises in conveyencing etc. Surely there'd be something in a contract stating condition of the property should remain unchanged during settlement period etc.

    A quick google seems to suggest in NSW the buyer becomes responsible at settlement. Good luck with it.

  • bobbified on 21/03/2022 - 10:31
    +6

    It's a simple fact that the vendor will not be able to fulfil their end of the contract.

    • rambutann on 21/03/2022 - 10:43
      +5

      Yeah i dont understand this whole situation. How TF could you agree to sell a place, have someone burn it down, then be responsible for the fact that they burnt it down…
      In Victoria you dont even settle if an oven is working at the time of auction but isn't working at final inspection.
      In my mind OP is stuck in the contract, but the contract cannot be fulfilled until the kitchen is repaired, or the contract is altered to accommodate for the new set of circumstances…

      • hys on 21/03/2022 - 16:38
        +1

        That is the same case for NSW, it should be in the same state…

        but that's only if the buyer has documented evidence on auction day, fell for it the first time… because a he said.. she said..

        the next time I bought, I did a house walkthrough with pictures and videos turning on/off all kitchen appliances, light switches, taps…etc..

  • Tee Rex Arms on 21/03/2022 - 10:37

    Unconditional contract

    • saitaris on 21/03/2022 - 10:39
      +3

      Which the seller can't meet their end of as the property is not in the same condition as when it was sold. By OP's description it sounds uninhabitable. If he were in QLD he'd be up shit creek without a paddle but in NSW he has options, but definitely needs a better lawyer to start with.

      • sheamas88 on 21/03/2022 - 12:01
        +3

        By OP's description it sounds uninhabitable. If he were in QLD he'd be up shit creek without a paddle

        False. In QLD if the property becomes uninhabitable before settlement the buyer can terminate. Section 64

        • saitaris on 21/03/2022 - 12:19

          Fair enough. Although I assume it would need to meet a legal definition of uninhabitable to qualify rather than simply the purchaser deciding it is so.

          • sheamas88 on 21/03/2022 - 12:39

            @saitaris:

            I assume it would need to meet a legal definition

            I'm not familiar with the NSW legislation around property sales, but are you implying that the OP would not need to meet some legal standard here to cancel the contract in this situation? Personally I'd be really surprised if there was something that allowed the buyer to terminate on a whim at this point, but would love to know if I'm wrong.

            For this specific case with OP, the fact that the owners had to move out afterwards would be a pretty obvious sign that the house is uninhabitable. Sounds like OP might have been better off in QLD despite you implying they'd be worse off.

            • saitaris on 21/03/2022 - 13:00
              +1

              @sheamas88: No such implication around not needing to meet a legal standard in NSW. Just that, with the info you have shared, it sounds like if you could meet the definition in QLD you may be better off or at least on equal footing, and if it fell short of meeting that legal standard in QLD you may be worse off. Of course this is largely irrelevant given OP isn't from QLD, but interesting nonetheless to see how different states approach it.

        • BartholemewH on 21/03/2022 - 14:15
          +1

          Yes, it's difficult to prove uninhabitable in QLD by many accounts though.

  • Jason Genova on 21/03/2022 - 10:52
    +1

    best case outcome is you get the damages amount deducted off the house price, that would be pretty sweet

    • djkelly69 on 21/03/2022 - 11:06
      +6

      IMO best case is you get the damaged parts of the house rebuilt.

      • onetwothreefour on 21/03/2022 - 14:09
        +1

        Whole house rebuilt due to smoke damage, sounds like a dream situation haha

  • oO0Dam0Oo on 21/03/2022 - 10:55
    +4

    I'd go with another lawyer given you have already settled as there may be a recourse against the lawyer who advised you to settle.

  • [Deactivated] on 21/03/2022 - 10:58
    +4

    Lots of advises to change lawyer, I'm just called two other solicitors. The first thing they said is in agreement of my current lawyer. they mentioned 'unconditional' words. Some say complicated to handed over mid-settlement, etc, etc. One said they can do it (cancelling it), but no promises.

    I don't know what to believe

    • saitaris on 21/03/2022 - 11:08
      +22

      Not a laywer, not legal advice, yada yada yada.

      Have a read of this page: https://www.propertynest.com.au/what-if-property-is-damaged-… It provides relevant passages of The Conveyancing Act.

      "The Act defines substantial damage to land as damage that renders the land materially different from that which the purchaser contracted to buy. Land includes buildings and other fixtures. An example would be severe damage that causes a house to be uninhabitable.

      Section 66L provides that a purchaser may rescind a contract if the land is substantially damaged before the risk passes to the purchaser. Generally, a purchaser must give the vendor written notice of rescission before completion and within 28 days of becoming aware of the damage."

      You will find similar here: https://www.conditsis.com/articles/publications/substantial-… As this site makes clear though it does depend on the scale of the damage.

    • BartholemewH on 21/03/2022 - 14:13
      +1

      It's NSW. OP isn't liable until settlement.

  • [Deactivated] on 21/03/2022 - 11:01
    -7

    Edit: I have just called Legal Aid NSW.

    These people are clueless tbh. First thing they said, is that they are not a lawyer (then what are they?)
    Then the next thing they said is to get a real lawyer.

    What is this shit-services that we pay our tax for??

    • AndyC1 on 21/03/2022 - 11:05
      +13

      Like allot of government areas the person you spoke with is a call center person and to get to speak with a real lawyer at Legal Aid will take months and you will need to not have any assets or money.

      BTW Legal aid is for people who cannot afford a lawyer.

    • DemocracyManifest on 21/03/2022 - 12:06
      +1

      Yeah the free legal service is total garbage. I had a win recently at ncat and most services told me it didn’t look good.

  • stirlo on 21/03/2022 - 11:07
    +8

    You should always insure your property from contract date to settlement date. It's a pretty basic thing your agent/conveyancer should have told you.

    I'm sorry for your loss but it's going to be an uphill battle from here. Auctions are "unconditional" Your best hope is convincing the current owner to claim on their insurance (pray they have it)

    • geoffs87 on 21/03/2022 - 15:30
      +3

      bought and sold several properties - most unconditional - never ever has my solicitors/bank/friends/advisors ever mentioned anything about insurance upfront.

      Crazy if that is whats required, but what on earth is the point of a pre-settlement inspection then?

      • od810 on 21/03/2022 - 17:03

        I think it's just safety thing. Solicitors/Conveyancers want to avoid the headache like this, but legally it doesn't make sense if the property get trashed and it's responsibility of buyers when they don't even have the key to access the property yet.

  • one man clan on 21/03/2022 - 11:08
    +2

    A couple articles here: https://rankinellison.com.au/publications/damage-to-property… https://www.conditsis.com/articles/publications/substantial-…

    You can probably delay settlement until it's fixed, or negotiate a price reduction to conduct appropriate repairs

    • stirlo on 21/03/2022 - 11:13

      The second link actually suggests the vendor can keep his deposit unless the damage is structural and that damaged furnishings windows and water damage are not reason enough…

      • saitaris on 21/03/2022 - 11:50
        +1

        In the case provided it seems to hinge on the expert testimony that the house was still fit for habitation and the damage was "minor" and that subsequently the damage done by the fire was not in itself sufficient reason to rescind the contract. No one here can determine definitively from OP's limited description as to whether the house is or is not fit for habitation, but certainly it may be prudent to get an expert opinion on this as part of formulating next steps.

      • one man clan on 21/03/2022 - 12:45

        Yes but they tried to void the contract rather than perform the contract with ammendments to account for the problems.

  • datafellows on 21/03/2022 - 11:11
    +10

    Ask from your solicitor why this does not apply in your case:

    "The Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) (the 'Act') provides that risk for a residential property under contract does not generally pass to a purchaser until the contract is completed. This means that vendors are responsible for any significant damage to the property and should therefore retain insurance until settlement."

    https://www.equilaw.com.au/what-happens-if-your-house-is-damaged-before-settlement/#:~:text=The%20Conveyancing%20Act%201919%20(NSW,therefore%20retain%20insurance%20until%20settlement.

  • larrydavid on 21/03/2022 - 11:16

    Hey, it's worth checking whether your lender provides complimentary insurance as part of taking out a loan post auction. I know that a few of the big banks do (e.g. NAB), so you could be covered and not know it.

    Also, the contract of sale should have the vendor's details - communicate with them through your solicitor not the estate agent.

  • kaleidoscope on 21/03/2022 - 11:32
    +4

    I like the comment that said sue the previous owner for destruction of property and recover the damages from them which pretty much what you should be targeting at this stage.

    Also, if the accident happen 2 weeks after the auction how come the owner living in it did not have insurance for it? Even if they stopped paying for home insurance just after auction without cancelling it’s not immediately cancelled. Whatever the case is, you should get a different lawyer too for providing such bs advice to their own client.

    Good luck

  • pharkurnell on 21/03/2022 - 11:56

    I like the comment that said sue the previous owner for destruction of property and recover the damages from them which pretty much what you should be targeting at this stage

    You have more chance of walking on the sun in thongs than winning that.

    Has OP asked if the "OWNERS" have insurance ?

    • [Deactivated] on 21/03/2022 - 12:00

      Yeah I have, see my edits above… Still waiting for reply…

      BTW what is the best way to update my forum, is it on the topic or by writing new comment?

      • pharkurnell on 21/03/2022 - 12:17
        -6

        Why are you asking all this on a bargain forum, and not legal people?

        • [Deactivated] on 21/03/2022 - 12:21
          +10

          Because sometimes common people know more than what professional do. At least that is what I think from other forums

          • djones145 on 21/03/2022 - 12:50

            @[Deactivated]: i agree with TheMindsetTraveller
            you should sell to him
            since two people have agreed you should sell!

        • dizzle on 21/03/2022 - 12:43
          +2

          Because it's always better to get 100 uninformed suggestions (and sift through them for the couple of accurate ones) than asking 1 or 2 people that do this for a living.

  • FloatingPoint on 21/03/2022 - 12:22
    +11

    Find a builder to inspect and give you a written quote for a full repair cost. Make sure the builder will be available asap after settlement date.
    Send it to vendor and say you are still interested to settle, with the repair cost to be deducted from the final purchase price on settlement. You can even add the cost of temporary accommodation to the bill but it's up to you.

    I bet the vendor will be quite likely to accept it. they may still pocket hundreds of thousands even after the repair cost deducted. They probably already had a moving plan, and it will be a financial burden for them to keep the property. They are not going to find another buyer very soon until it's been fully repaired.

    OK of course unless they are a complete a-hole then you will need to put them in the court.

    "Cancel the deal" will put you into a bad legal position as you will be the one liable for breaking the contract.

    • john_conner on 21/03/2022 - 15:08
      +2

      Definitely add cost of temporary accomodation & cost of removing all the burnt out junk to the cost.

      Be prepared for the repair to take a long time.

  • lazywombat on 21/03/2022 - 12:28
    +2

    @amirite - if this property that you're buying is in NSW, have you tried contacting NSW Fair Trading? They may be able to clarify this for you.
    https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/contact-us

    • pharkurnell on 21/03/2022 - 12:58
      +1

      have you tried contacting NSW Fair Trading?

      no only ozb

    • [Deactivated] on 21/03/2022 - 15:59

      No I haven't, my understanding fair trading is only for builders?

      • lazywombat on 22/03/2022 - 12:27
        +1

        Try calling them - Fair Trading regulate trading conditions generally, not just builders

  • garetz on 21/03/2022 - 12:49
    +3

    Anything you purchase must be in the same condition as when you purchased it to begin with on the settlement date.

    As long as you have a good reason, you can back out of an auction contract.
    That fire basically voids your contract.

    Get a better solicitor, sounds like your current one is a real idiot.

    • hoey888 on 21/03/2022 - 19:23
      +1

      I assume you bought a house at auction unconditionally. A house with all the cabinets, walls and roof intact.

      As part of the final inspection process, you will have rights to inspect property to ensure it is "in the same condition" as at purchase date. ie, you still have a house with all the walls, cabinets and roof still there.

      Being an auction there will be pictures and video? if it was recorded. You might potentially be able to use this to advantage as bargaining chip. Raise your rights to deduct/withhold settlement funds accordingly. Your property contract may stipulate maximum amounts held; so get legal advice to confirm.

      (if you are getting quotes, ask the tradies for a higher/inflated quote for repairs/remediation work to provide to vendors)

  • djones145 on 21/03/2022 - 13:02

    your contract of sale should outline what is required to be there at settlement time
    usually its around fittings like dishwashers etc
    but you will definitely need to talk to your lawyer and see whether when they say premise (what was on my contract) means the building in good nick or not

    you would expect that or someone could just leave all the fittings and remove say part of the house or roof or the whole building (people do do that in america, you buy the building and truck it to another location, tv show about it)

  • PuntyBrah on 21/03/2022 - 13:09
    +1

    your lawyer is wack, i would review bomb the idiot.

    • Davo1111 on 21/03/2022 - 13:19
      +1

      sounds like a terrible idea.

      • PuntyBrah on 21/03/2022 - 13:21

        after this is well and sorted of course.

  • edy4eva on 21/03/2022 - 13:12
    +5

    The owner is liable, they can try washing their hands from it, they can say contracts have been signed, but none of this matters. They caused damage to property pending transfer of ownership.

    You need a lawyer with teeth, sharp ones. Sue the owner for a whole heap of things.

    Good luck

  • apple2016 on 21/03/2022 - 13:25

    My lawyer said the once I won an auction, it is my property, and I have to settle on it, no matter what

    If this is true, you might have to settle. However, you could go after the seller to recover the costs to fix the damage he caused and its not "his property" to damage. I think if you had insurance, they would have done this for you.

  • Poor Ass on 21/03/2022 - 13:28
    +1

    Rules varies from state to state

    Some states you are responsible for the building on the day all parties signed the contract and some states you are responsible on settlement date

  • thatonethere on 21/03/2022 - 13:29

    Interesting similar story which highlights the peculiar QLD legislation

    https://www.propertychat.com.au/community/threads/house-burn…

    • netjock on 21/03/2022 - 13:50

      QLD beginning to sound like the wild west. These two lost their deposit, at least the bank was nice enough to compensate them

      • sheamas88 on 21/03/2022 - 14:46
        +1

        Not saying QLD couldn't do with an overhaul as there is far too much in the legislation that benefits the seller unfairly, but that story was not as black-and-white as you would have people believe.

      • [Deactivated] on 21/03/2022 - 22:24

        From memory there was a lot more to the story than the article led on. Apparently the buyers delayed settlement multiple times (weeks-months). It was their fault ultimately.

  • tomleonhart on 21/03/2022 - 13:32
    +2

    Wow. You learn something news everyday.

  • meumax on 21/03/2022 - 13:36
    +4

    The contract you signed is for the purchase of the property in the condition is was at the auction. That is why pre-settlement inspections are a thing. It is to give the purchaser the opportunity to confirm the property is in the right condition before settlement and make any adjustments if required.

    Usually it is minor things like say the vendor removed some parts of the house like blinds that were specified in the contract. The buyer can demand the vendor return the blinds or subract the cost to replace them from the settlement figure in the adjustments section of the final settlement figure.

    So in this instance it is the vendors responsibility to deliver the house in the pre-auction condition by rectifying the damage or you could demand a reduction in the settlement figure equal to the cost to make good the kitchen. I think rescinding the contract is also an option but you'd need to speak to a better lawyer.

  • bazingaa on 21/03/2022 - 13:44
    +2

    I'm confused. If OP owns the house right after the auction, does that mean the seller is the tenant of the OP ?

    • jaimex2 on 21/03/2022 - 14:19
      +1

      No. He doesn't own it till settlement which hasn't happened.

    • sheamas88 on 21/03/2022 - 14:30

      the seller is the tenant of the OP

      It's not a bad way to look at it, I'm not as familiar with NSW legislation specifically but for all intents and purposes the seller more like a tenant than an owner once the sale contract has been signed. The inspection before sale contract is like the entry report and the pre-settlement inspection is like the exit report. If the seller made substantial modifications to the property, or left a bunch of rubbish behind, then they might be liable for costs to rectify, similar to a tenant would.

      Accidental damage gets tricky

  • Bid Sniper on 21/03/2022 - 13:48
    +14

    This is lesson learnt form The Fast and the Furious one.

    -Dom wins the green Mitsubishi Ellipse in a street race "clean and clear", however when questioned by the rival gang about ownership, he answers "No its not I haven't taken delivery".
    -Gang shoots up the car and the NAWZ catches fire and blows up the car.
    -Brian still owes Dom a 10 second car because he failed to deliver the agreed up car. Also is unable to collect the "cash and respect"

    td;dr, get a decent lawyer, property isnt yours until contract has settled and was it isnt what you signed the contract on.

    • djkelly69 on 21/03/2022 - 15:05
      +9

      So to paraphrase: The OP never had his house. Granny-flat buying, not double-insuring like he should. He is lucky the kitchen fire didn't blow the welds on the entrance.

      • Bid Sniper on 21/03/2022 - 17:08
        +2

        Yes

        You never had me, you never had your house title deed.

  • netjock on 21/03/2022 - 13:53
    +1

    Apparently police is investigating this because it involves significant material damage.

    Destruction of property means potentially someone is going to court and jail. If it is your property then press charges if the police asks. That would make the seller sort themselves out. Even if they have to swallow it as part of their equity.

    Not spending $1k on insurance to insure an asset that is worth hundreds of thousands of dollar is just not very reasonable. Maybe had to cancel the policy to afford fuel for the week.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join