5833 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

Reading 2-3 years is what gets people into trouble.

You need to read through at least a decade of minutes to develop a sincere appreciation for what’s going on. In the example I gave above a couple years of minutes turned out to be worthless.

[LeoVictoria]

There aren't as many OSFI in Victoria as you may think but there definitely is in the mainland

Huh? OSFI refers to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, aka the banking regulator. The stress test they introduced in 2017 and 2018 affects everyone taking out a mortgage to buy a property. That's about 75% of Victoria purchasers.

[Belleprincess]

Reading 2-3 years is what gets people into trouble.

You need to read through at least a decade of minutes to develop a sincere appreciation for what’s going on. In the example I gave above a couple years of minutes turned out to be worthless.

No one should ever buy a 2003 or prior condo that has not been remediated. Their realtor should advise against it every time - accept if: it’s a steel and concrete build, Early 80s & 70s are generally fine but not without a depreciation report.

I had a client that I advised NOT to buy a unit that was in the process of being remediated. Advised her that they can open up the building and find more issues - adding to the cost. That’s exactly what happened, she owed an additional 10k.

I’ve never heard of anyone asking for 10 years of minutes. My husband is currently a realtor and hasn’t either. Typical is 2 years. If you want to be extra diligent- there’s certainly nothing wrong with it.

[tjv]

Exactly!

 

Several years back I helped a fellow who was slapped with a $35,000 envelope remediation fee (leaky condo) two years after buying into a 1980's-era condo in the City of Victoria.

 

But how could that be? He and his agent looked over several years of strata minutes and there was no indication of an envelope issue, zilch, and the seller never intimated that there were any issues with the building as far as he was aware.

 

But as the story unfolded it turned out the seller was on strata in the 90's and during that time a report had been commissioned that identified the need for envelope remediation. For 15 years the strata did nothing about it, opting to forgo investment into the building in order to keep the strata fees low. Circa 2010-2011 the inner circle realized time was up and several sold their units to unsuspecting buyers like my friend. Others who had purchased throughout the first decade of the 00's were equally shocked but had little to no recourse.

 

So there you have it. Want a bargain? Go ahead, but you better know what you're getting yourself into.

so what happened to your friend?  did he sue and win?  was he able to collect or was the judgment worthless?

[Mike K.]

No one should ever buy a 2003 or prior condo that has not been remediated. Their realtor should advise against it every time - accept if: it’s a steel and concrete build, Early 80s & 70s are generally fine but not without a depreciation report.

My friend’s building was an early 80’s steel and concrete build and nobody caught wind of the issues, not even the lame duck depreciation report produced clarity regarding the seriousness of the situation.

[Mike K.]

so what happened to your friend? did he sue and win? was he able to collect or was the judgment worthless?

He took the seller and the realtor to court and won.

[DavidL]

Here we go. The world is run by old white guys in dark suits sitting behind closed doors with secret entrances and exits. Secret handshakes, too.

 

Hey! We already told you..first rule of running the world behind closed doors with secret exits and handshakes is we don't talk about running the world.  Shhhhhh.

[AllseeingEye]

Hey! We already told you..first rule of running the world behind closed doors with secret exits and handshakes is we don't talk about running the world.  Shhhhhh.

Sure we do. But only behind closed doors. Clearly you need attend our meetings more often.......  

[dasmo]

Everyone knows the Freemasons are secondary to the Oddfellows.... even the Illuminati and the Skull Club answer to the Oddfellows.

[tjv]

He took the seller and the realtor to court and won.

yes, but did they get paid?  Getting the judgment is easy, but getting the court to enforce their own orders is another matter.  I have a large judgment that is basically being ignored and I've tried everything including asking the court to impose jail time and its a giant waste of money and time

 

As for reviewing 2-3 years worth of strata minutes, yes that is a waste of time, you need to go back as far as possible.  I've seen leaky condo work delayed so much the balconies were falling off the building and structural wood elements rotting.  The government changed the lending rules about a decade ago where you could once get no interest loans to do the repair to having to pay interest and suddenly the leak condo repair work evaporated. 

 

I will say this, if its a wood frame stucco building built in the late 80's to the early 2000s be extra careful

[Mike K.]

Yes, he got paid out immediately.

 

Some realtors can't even figure out a simple property boundary let alone have the desire or wherewithal to pour over a decade of strata minutes. But anyone in the development industry who is not a realtor will tell you if you can go back 20 years, do it. Spend a weekend going through the history in detail and you'll be surprised by what you'll find.

[MarkoJ]

No one should ever buy a 2003 or prior condo that has not been remediated. Their realtor should advise against it every time - accept if: it’s a steel and concrete build, Early 80s & 70s are generally fine but not without a depreciation report.

I had a client that I advised NOT to buy a unit that was in the process of being remediated. Advised her that they can open up the building and find more issues - adding to the cost. That’s exactly what happened, she owed an additional 10k.

I’ve never heard of anyone asking for 10 years of minutes. My husband is currently a realtor and hasn’t either. Typical is 2 years. If you want to be extra diligent- there’s certainly nothing wrong with it.

 

Didn't they start using rainscreen in 1999; where is this 2003 number coming from?

 

Steel and concrete buildings leaked too; Manhattan and Metropolitan great examples.

 

70s and 80s building while perhaps properly constructed suffer from life-expectancy issues. Even a perfectly installed envelope runs its course. Same with elevators, etc. 

 

I don't think you can paint condos with a broad brush like don't buy these years, etc. Really have to look at it on a case by case basis. Obviously buy a 4 story wood-framed condo on the waterfront built in 1993 that has not been remediated and has no engineering report is a massive reflag. Things are often not so clear cut.

 

I also think you have to take everything in context. Regants park for example has a depreciation report calling for a new building envelope <10 years. It will be approx. $35k to $40k per unit. That being said you can buy at Regants park for less than half on a $ per square basis of what new concrete developments are going for. 

[LeoVictoria]

Didn't they start using rainscreen in 1999; where is this 2003 number coming from?

 

Steel and concrete buildings leaked too; Manhattan and Metropolitan great examples.

 

70s and 80s building while perhaps properly constructed suffer from life-expectancy issues. Even a perfectly installed envelope runs its course. Same with elevators, etc. 

 

I don't think you can paint condos with a broad brush like don't buy these years, etc. Really have to look at it on a case by case basis. Obviously buy a 4 story wood-framed condo on the waterfront built in 1993 that has not been remediated and has no engineering report is a massive reflag. Things are often not so clear cut.

 

I also think you have to take everything in context. Regants park for example has a depreciation report calling for a new building envelope <10 years. It will be approx. $35k to $40k per unit. That being said you can buy at Regants park for less than half on a $ per square basis of what new concrete developments are going for. 

 

Not to mention the idea that current condos have somehow arrived at some perfect state of construction and will not have their own set of problems is pure fantasy.   Won't be as bad as leaky condos of course but every generation of buildings has their own issues that aren't apparent at the start.

[tjv]

I would have to wonder where a realtor's liability would be in buying something and then discovering the problem in reports that were readily available

[dasmo]

Like changing windows. A friend in an 80s condo had a $70k bill for glass face and window replacement. That was ten years ago.

[Bob Fugger]

I would have to wonder where a realtor's liability would be in buying something and then discovering the problem in reports that were readily available

 

I think that the realtor's liability ends at obtaining the strata documents.  It's ultimately up to the buyer to satisfy themselves.

 

As a parallel, imagine if someone purchased a home after an issue pointed out in the building inspection came to pass (e.g., a flood caused by blocked perimeter drains) - and then they turned around and sued the realtor!  Unless there was some obvious fraud and collusion between the realtor and the building inspector, this would never be successful.

[MarkoJ]

This is an awesome local service -> https://condoclear.ca

[Mike K.]

I would have to wonder where a realtor's liability would be in buying something and then discovering the problem in reports that were readily available

 

In my friend's case the allegation was that the seller 'knew' of the issue, but failed to disclose it.

 

He was found guilty when it was proven that 15 years earlier he had been on strata ...right when an engineering report came back with an outline of issues. That report was never disclosed.

 

When my conditional offer was accepted on the house I bought I began the due diligence journey and uncovered a MASSIVE discrepancy between the information provided to me via the realtor/seller and the reality down on the ground. The seller's realtor's behaviour and complete lack of awareness was shameful, to be honest, and she's a big-time player in our region.

[LeoVictoria]

In my friend's case the allegation was that the seller 'knew' of the issue, but failed to disclose it.

 

He was found guilty when it was proven that 15 years earlier he had been on strata ...right when an engineering report came back with an outline of issues. That report was never disclosed.

 

When my conditional offer was accepted on the house I bought I began the due diligence journey and uncovered a MASSIVE discrepancy between the information provided to me via the realtor/seller and the reality down on the ground. The seller's realtor's behaviour and complete lack of awareness was shameful, to be honest, and she's a big-time player in our region.

 

Yeah that would fall under material latent defect.

Very bad idea not to disclose those as a seller.     you will lose in court.

 

Fun fact, in addition to suing the seller and agent, you can report the agent to council and they will be fined if it turns out they knew about it and didn't disclose.  

[Mike K.]

You can't claim ignorance, that's for sure.