We’re in contract on a house with an old (1965) wood ‘shake’ roof (i.e., wood shingle roof). The sellers had a roofer look at it and the roofer said that he could repair it and give it a “5 year certification”, meaning that it’s supposed to last for 5 years though they give no guarantee for that duration. Our inspector (not a roof specialist) said he thought the roof was in pretty bad shape and he recommended total replacement.
Our real estate agent buys and sells a lot of homes in this area and he says that the roof is in comparable condition to many others he has seen, and he feels asking for a new roof is excessive.
Here are a couple of other considerations:
The house is pretty desirable (there were two offers, including ours, the first day it was on the market); the price ended up at $20K above their initial asking price.
I’m really picky about where to live and this house is in a perfect location.
We, of course, would love a new roof rather than having to replace it in a few years. But I’d be very bummed if we lost the house over this.
What did the inspector say about the attic? My first house had a roof that needed replacing “within 5 years” because it had 3 layers on it and it was old. There was very little water staining and damage in the attic so we bought with confidence. The ceiling in the living room also had visible water damage, but it looked like an old stain. in the 4 years I lived there I never had any problems with leakage, although I did have to put a new roof on as a condition of it’s sale. The spot in the living room never developed new water stains either.
In any bidding war, the least careful, most clueless person wins the house. At too high a price. Do you want to be that person?
If other things about the house (location, style), etc., are truly perfect for you and there won’t be any similar houses selling any time soon, then the answer might well be yes. If any house of that model in that tract will do, there might be 5 of those selling every year, year in and year out. In which case the answer on this one may be no.
Said another way: be prepared to overpay for the “perfect” house. If this one is *almost *perfect for you and perfect for somebody else, they’ll overpay. Or force you to overpay even more for almost perfect. That is the real trap.
2) Whenever you see something significant that needs fixing, do NOT try to make the seller fix it. His motivation at that point is to do the most slapdash low quality job that can possibly fool you long enough to sign. So that is exactly what they will do. Seller’s agents have a long list of contractors who specialize in the “fix it with paint” method of home repair.
What you do instead is simply lower your bid by how much you know it will cost to do the work, whatever it is, to your satisfaction. Go ahead and tell the seller your bid is $X lower because the whatever needs replacing immediately.
Another advantage of this method is it forces you to be realistic. Sure, you’d *prefer *the house have a brand-new roof and still be priced at the current asking. But that’s not on offer. So think like this: What if you’d bought it 10 years ago and now the roof looks just like it does today. Is this year the year you’d replace it? Or would you just patch it?
Figure out what you’d really do, and write your offer accordingly.
If that causes the seller to sell to somebody else, see rule 1.
LSLGuy said it perfectly. There is no such thing as a perfect house and this is a buyer’s market. Why pay for something that isn’t right? There’s a reason why people say, “I need a roof over my head.” That is because a roof is the most important part.
If you want to pay for a house and pay for the priviledge of fixing it, that’s fine, but realize your perfect house isn’t perfect and your bargain isn’t a bargain.
We had a similar issue, except that we already knew the top-floor unit (it’s a 3-flat condo) had a minor leak if it rains hard for several days. The unit had been on the market for 8 months when we made the offer, and to make a long story short, the sellers put into escrow what our share would be of a new roof. So if the roof needs to be replaced in the next year, we’re off the hook.
Well, call me uncareful and clueless if you like, but there is literally a 2 block radius that is my target. I’m not likely to find another house in this good a location at this good a price this year. (Yes, the price was still quite good despite the bidding war).
Everyone pays a premium for things they happen to appreciate. For me, the location of my home is, by far, its most important aspect. And unlike, say, the roof, this is not something I can upgrade about the house at a later date.
And on the ‘buyer’s market’ point: the market is not uniform. I’m not in Las Vegas (thank goodness!). Houses in this neighborhood stay on the market about 2 weeks on average; that’s not a buyer’s market.
Sounds like their are people willing to buy they house as is. Since you are already in the purchasing stage you could attempt to get something back for the roof but if your attempt is not stomach-able for the seller the can just sell to the other bidders.
You’ve painted yourself into a corner with limits on location. If location is that important to you buy the house and plan on paying for a new roof.
My only comment is that RE agents should be trusted like you would trust anyone who expects to make a very large commission off of the deal and not see you as a customer again for many many years. (ie - the only thing ‘excessive’ is the risk to her/his commission)
Its a negotiating point, like anything, and if there’s $ knocked off the price so you can have it done yourselves after, its just as good. In fact, you might have a higher comfort level knowing who did the work and how it was done.
Fair enough, but in this instance my RE agent was relating a verifiable fact, that none of the numerous shake-roof houses he’s worked with in the 'hood has had a roof replaced as part of the sale. Whether ours is worse than any of those is impossible for me to determine, but it seems unlikely just by the laws of probability.
What boytyperanma said. More specifically & succinctly than I did. If the house is perfect for you, pay what it takes to get it.
And plan to pay for a roof (or at least a roof repair) too. Perhaps not immediately, but within a few years.
Buying a house is always a mix of finance & emotion. Although different peoples’ finances differ, the cold facts of accounting do not. And different people’s emotions are all over the map. Nothing wrong with that.
My advice is simply to understand clearly what you are doing, why you are doing it, and what you can expect to happen when you do it. Which choice you make is totally up to you.
I tried to edit my original post to alter the tone of the firrst rule a bit, but timed out. What I meant was that in a bidding war, it’s usually the most emotional buyer, rather than the most financially rational buyer, who wins. And it’s 100% OK if that’s you. As long as it’s on purpose.
Good luck whatever you decide. And I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically.
Another thing to keep in mind with this type of situation is that if the roof needs to be replaced and you don’t have the cash for it asking the seller to lower their price won’t get you that money. That is, if the roof is $6000 and you ask the seller to take $6000 off the house, you’ll get that $6000 over the next 30 years, not today.
I know I’ve seen some sales where there was a clause written in that said after the purchase the seller has to write a check back to the buyer for X amount to cover the repairs. Of course the only way I could realistically see that happening is if the seller is moving in to a smaller house. Just remember this is the same as taking out a loan that you have to pay back over 30 years.
Where is the house located? How often has your region (not just your target neighborhood) experienced wildfires during the past 10 years? How many other houses in the neighborhood (and the outlying region) have shake roofs?
Being from Southern California, I don’t need to have been a real estate owner to want answers to those kind of questions whenever I hear the term “shake roof.”
a 45 year old shake roof is garbage. It WILL require tear-off and replacement. If you want the usual shingle (cheap, durable enough), that will mean nailing sheathing (usually OSB - I hate it, see what the price would be for real plywood) over the “skip sheathing” used with shake.
You have already overbid - call a couple of roofers, ask for ballpark numbers - they will need to know sq footage and “1965 shake”.
Once you know how much additional expense you are looking at, THEN decide if you REALLY must have THIS house, or can wait it out until another comes along
Unless he’s a very rare buyer’s agent, paid directly by you, then he’s not your agent, he’s the seller’s agent: he’s paid by the seller and is paid to get as high a price as possible. He’s going to ACT like he’s your best friend, but bottom line is that he’s a salesman, and you should treat everything he says as coming from a salesman (i.e. not necessarily wrong, and may even be useful information, but always assume it’s biased towards getting you to pay more money).
But I agree the way to handle it is to add the price of a new roof to what you pay the seller to get the real cost of the house to you. If that’s what you want to pay, OK, and if not, then walk away (though you do have the chance to re-negotiate with the seller, now that you know you have this added cost).
If you’re in contract, and this is a follow-up negotiating item based on the inspection, you can always ask for a new roof. If they say no, then you can decide based on all the above comments whether replacing the roof at your own expense is worth it. You don’t lose the house unless you decide to walk away.
This sounds a lot like the house we recently sold. What ended up happening was we took the lowest replacement bid, split the cost with the buyer and ammended the contract price by that amount leaving it up to him to have the work done at a future date when he felt it was necessary.