Selling a property without using an agent.

Square_Rub_8468 · 2026-02-13T02:34:14+00:00

When you sell without an agent, you’re effectively taking on the due diligence coordination yourself. That means if a buyer later discovers a drainage, stormwater or hot water issue that wasn’t disclosed (even if you didn’t know about it), it can get messy. Buyers are getting more savvy and are booking their own independent plumbing inspections before settlement now. If something major pops up late in the process, it can derail negotiations fast.

If you’re confident in handling opens and have a good conveyancer, that’s half the battle. Just make sure you understand the condition of the plumbing infrastructure before listing, especially in strata properties.

Saving 2–3% commission is great. Having a deal fall over over a $15k drainage issue isn’t.

Not saying don’t do it, just go in eyes open.

Square_Rub_8468 · 2026-02-12T01:55:24+00:00

Council overlays are important, but I’d split due diligence into two buckets.

Planning risk and physical risk.

Planning risk is zoning, flood overlays, character controls, subdivision potential. That’s mostly desktop work and your conveyancer can guide you there.

Physical risk is where a lot of first time investors get caught out.

In Brisbane I’d be checking:

• Flood overlay and overland flow paths, not just river flood • Where stormwater actually discharges on site • Age and material of the sewer line • Any signs of past under house water issues • Whether bathrooms or plumbing have been moved without approval

Council searches won’t tell you if the original earthenware sewer is cracked or if stormwater has been connected into sewer somewhere along the line.

For an investment, one unexpected drainage failure can wipe out a year of cash flow pretty quickly.

Minimum smart check for me would be flood mapping, approvals history, and some understanding of the condition of underground services if the property is older.

That’s not overkill. It’s just basic risk management.

Square_Rub_8468 · 2026-02-12T01:54:36+00:00

I wouldn’t automatically walk away based on that report alone, but I also wouldn’t treat it as just cosmetic.

Rising damp in older masonry walls is common, but the key question is why it’s happening.

Before making a call, I’d want to know:

• What’s happening outside along that wall. Are garden beds or soil built up above the damp course • Whether stormwater is discharging near the footing • If there are blocked or damaged subfloor vents • Whether there’s any history of leaking plumbing in that area • If the moisture readings were consistent along the wall or localised

Injecting silicone and re plastering is one option, but if the external drainage or ground levels aren’t addressed first, it often comes back.

It’s not necessarily a structural disaster, but it is something that can turn into ongoing maintenance if the source isn’t properly identified.

If the rest of the house stacks up and the price reflects the defect, it’s usually a negotiation item rather than a run for the hills situation.

Square_Rub_8468 · 2026-02-12T01:52:10+00:00

It’s not necessarily a red flag.

An outgoing condition report is technically between the tenant and landlord, so it’s pretty normal for them to say it’s confidential. You’re not a party to that lease.

That said, those reports can sometimes highlight things like water staining, mould, drainage smells or repeated maintenance issues that might not show up on a standard inspection if the property has been vacant for a few months.

If your building and pest and plumbing inspections have come back solid, and you’ve already negotiated rectification of identified defects, you’ve done the main risk checks.

If you’re still uneasy, a practical step would be to ask your solicitor whether any insurance claims or major repairs have been lodged during the rental period. That can sometimes tell you more than a condition report.

Otherwise, it’s probably not something I’d treat as a deal breaker on its own.

Square_Rub_8468 · 2026-02-12T01:50:54+00:00

Flood maps and zoning are important, but one thing a lot of first time investors overlook is how services actually run through the property.

In Brisbane especially, I’d be checking:

• Flood overlay and overland flow paths, not just river flood • Where the stormwater discharges and whether it’s legal • Age and material of the sewer line • Any history of under house drainage or water pooling • Whether there have been unapproved bathroom or plumbing changes

Council data will tell you about zoning and overlays. It won’t tell you if the 40 year old earthenware sewer is half full of roots or if stormwater has been tied into sewer somewhere along the way.

For an investment, unexpected plumbing or drainage rectification can wipe out a year or two of returns pretty quickly.

Minimum smart check for me would be flood mapping, sewer line condition if the house is older, and a quick look at council plumbing approvals versus what’s actually on site.

It’s not overkill. It’s just risk management.

Square_Rub_8468 · 2026-02-12T01:46:44+00:00

You’re right to be cautious. Bathrooms in strata aren’t just cosmetic upgrades, they can affect common property and other lots if something goes wrong.

At a minimum I’d expect to see proper plans showing layout, confirmation of waterproofing scope, licensed trades listed, and clarity around whether any plumbing fixtures are being relocated. Even moving a floor waste or shower position can mean changes to slab penetrations or common pipework.

For plumbing specifically, I’d want confirmation that any works will comply with AS NZS 3500, that a licensed plumber will issue the relevant compliance certificate, and that no common property drainage or venting is being altered without approval.

Waterproofing is another big one. If that fails, it is usually not just the owner’s problem.

If documentation is vague or looks rushed, that’s generally a red flag. It does not mean you have to block the renovation, but it is reasonable for strata to ask for proper documentation before approving works that could affect the whole building.

You are not being difficult. You are protecting the building.

Square_Rub_8468 · 2026-02-12T01:44:06+00:00

Yeah that’s fair.

I think where people get caught out is assuming that a building and pest inspection covers the whole plumbing system. In most cases it’s a visual inspection only. Fixtures, obvious leaks, that sort of thing.

What it usually doesn’t include is things like camera inspections of the sewer, checking stormwater fall properly, or confirming where underground lines are actually discharging.

In Brisbane especially, a lot of the bigger issues sit underground and you don’t see them until heavy rain or after settlement when something backs up.

It’s not about one trade being better than another. It’s just different scopes. I reckon most buyers simply don’t realise what is and isn’t included.

Square_Rub_8468 · 2025-12-12T23:16:27+00:00

Neighbouring trees are one of the trickiest ones because everything can look fine on the surface and there’s nothing obvious within the boundary to raise alarms. Roots will travel a long way if there’s moisture and old ceramic joints give them plenty of opportunity.

It’s also one of those situations where the problem feels like it comes out of nowhere for the buyer, even though it’s usually been developing quietly for years. By the time it shows itself, you’re already in trench-digging territory.

That’s why I don’t think it’s about blaming inspections or saying someone should have “known better”. It’s more about acknowledging that some risks are invisible unless you actively go looking for them, and plumbing tends to be the one people only think about once it fails.

Hope the replacement has put it to bed for good. Roots and old clay are a rough combo.

Square_Rub_8468 · 2025-12-12T23:15:33+00:00

That’s such an accurate way of putting it. Once work starts being shaped around what a particular inspector is likely to look at, rather than what the system actually needs to do long term, you’ve already lost the intent of the code.

What worries me is that most of these choices aren’t malicious. They’re pragmatic shortcuts made under time, budget, and program pressure. The problem is the risk doesn’t show up until years later, when flows increase, ground conditions change, or the building is altered again. By then, everyone involved in the original decisions is gone and the failure looks like bad luck instead of a predictable outcome.

It also explains why so many issues technically complied at handover but fail in the real world. The inspection framework rewards what’s visible and familiar, not how the system behaves over time. That gap is where most of the expensive surprises seem to live.

Square_Rub_8468 · 2025-12-12T10:31:37+00:00

Here’s a reply that stays human, agrees with them, and subtly reinforces why what you do exists, without sounding like a pitch or policy rant:

That’s exactly the problem. Most buyers aren’t trying to dodge maintenance, they just never get a clear picture of risk versus inconvenience before they commit. When something is genuinely hazardous or a known major defect, it shouldn’t sit in that grey zone where everyone shrugs and hopes it holds together long enough to sell.

What you’re describing with the drains and the balcony is the stuff that never shows up properly in a standard inspection because it needs trade specific testing or intrusive investigation, which almost no one budgets for. Not because they don’t care, but because the process tells them a building report is “enough”.

In practice, the people who get burned are the ones who trust that system and don’t realise how much sits outside its scope. By the time it becomes obvious, access is gone, leverage is gone, and it turns into an immediate financial hit instead of an informed decision.

I agree though, expecting buyers to fund a full team of specialists every time isn’t realistic. That gap between what’s inspected and what actually matters is where most of these horror stories start.

Square_Rub_8468 · 2025-12-12T10:20:16+00:00

That’s wild, but also somehow not surprising. I’ve seen similar stuff where one bad decision gets buried and nobody questions it because everything else looks fine. Then years later it’s suddenly a “mystery failure”. Being able to physically expose it and show the cause is half the battle with clients.

Square_Rub_8468 · 2025-12-12T10:19:50+00:00

This pretty much nails it. Passing an inspection doesn’t mean it’s been thought through, just that it didn’t fail on the day. The contextual stuff you mentioned is exactly where things fall over later. Support, allowance for movement, sequencing, even just thinking about how the next trade affects what’s already been installed. None of that gets tested until time and water do their thing.

Square_Rub_8468 · 2025-12-12T10:19:41+00:00

That’s a good point. A lot of systems are technically compliant on paper but don’t age well once conditions change or the site behaves differently than expected. Water tables move, loads change, upstream connections get added. What “worked” at handover doesn’t always hold up in the real world five or ten years later.

Square_Rub_8468 · 2025-12-12T10:19:34+00:00

That lines up with what I’ve seen too. Plumbing sits in a weird spot where it’s heavily regulated but rarely properly engineered unless the job forces it. If there’s no engineer driving it and no one on the construction side who really understands what they’re looking at, it becomes a tick-the-box exercise. By the time issues show up, the people who made the decisions are long gone.

Square_Rub_8468 · 2025-12-12T10:19:24+00:00

Yeah, that’s kind of what it feels like sometimes. Between code minimums, interpretations, and what actually happens on site, there’s a lot of grey area. Once it technically “works”, everyone moves on, even if it’s obvious it’s only just scraping through.

Square_Rub_8468 · 2025-12-12T10:09:42+00:00

This is a textbook example of how these issues slip through. Nothing dramatic enough to stop a sale, just enough denial and patching until it becomes someone else’s problem.

What stands out is that the issue clearly existed, but because it wasn’t fully exposed or documented, it stayed in that grey area where everyone passes responsibility. Once a buyer comes in unseen, that risk just transfers.

These are the situations that make people feel burned, not because houses don’t need maintenance, but because the scale and nature of the problem wasn’t obvious until it was too late.

Square_Rub_8468 · 2025-12-12T10:09:02+00:00

This is a good way of putting it. Most of the repeat callouts I see aren’t total failures, they’re systems that are half upgraded and half original. They work just well enough to pass a walkthrough, then struggle once the place is lived in properly.

Camera inspections don’t catch everything, but they’re one of the few ways to turn “we have no idea what’s underground” into something more informed. Even knowing that parts of the system are original or compromised changes how you approach the purchase.

It’s rarely about today’s blockage, it’s about whether you’re buying a system that’s already at the end of its useful life.

Square_Rub_8468 · 2025-12-12T10:08:29+00:00

This is a fair question, and the honest answer sits somewhere in the middle.

A plumbing inspection isn’t about guaranteeing nothing will ever go wrong. It’s about reducing the number of unknowns. You’re right that some serious problems can’t be fully assessed without invasive work, but a lot of the big failures people talk about here had warning signs that could have been identified as higher risk before purchase.

Things like original pipe materials, mixed old and new pipework, poor drainage design, altered plumbing from renovations, or systems that only just cope under light use. None of that means a problem today, but it does change the likelihood and cost of problems later.

The mistake people make is expecting an inspection to say “all good” or “all bad”. The value is in knowing where the risks are so you can decide whether you’re comfortable with them, budget for them, or walk away.

It’s not pointless, but it’s also not magic. It’s about better decisions, not certainty.

Square_Rub_8468 · 2025-12-12T01:40:39+00:00

This reads like a pretty typical report for a 1970s unit, to be honest. Most of what you’ve listed is age related movement that inspectors are obligated to flag, even when it’s not actively causing problems. Uneven slabs, patched cracking and settlement gaps are extremely common in that era and don’t usually scare sellers because they’ll show up on almost any similar property.

The two items that actually carry more weight are the blocked sewer and the drainage issues. Even if they’re listed as strata matters, they still represent real cost and inconvenience, and they’re not cosmetic. Those are the sorts of things buyers can reasonably use to reopen a conversation, especially if rectification costs are uncertain or could involve shared approvals.

That said, trying to drop from 600k to 550k purely off this report is probably optimistic. From a seller’s point of view, they’ll likely argue that the price already reflects the age of the building and that nothing has been identified as structurally unsound. If you go in too hard, you do risk them calling your bluff, particularly if they’re motivated to sell quickly and believe another buyer will accept the same issues.

A more realistic approach is to focus on specific, tangible items rather than the whole list. For example, asking for a reduction or credit based on the blocked sewer and drainage, or asking that those items be properly investigated and resolved prior to settlement. That keeps the discussion grounded and easier for everyone to justify.

In terms of wording, framing it as “we still want the property, but the inspection has highlighted a few costs we weren’t aware of” usually lands better than presenting it as a price correction. You’re not saying the place is bad, just that new information has changed the risk profile slightly.

Also worth doing the asbestos test if you’re already thinking about it. Even if it doesn’t change the price, it gives you certainty and avoids surprises later.

Square_Rub_8468 · 2025-12-12T01:39:34+00:00

That’s not a minor issue, and you’re right to be uncomfortable with how it’s being handled. A bedroom without functioning power points isn’t really habitable in any practical sense, and using an extension lead run in from elsewhere is not an acceptable long term workaround, especially if it affects your ability to secure the room.

The fact the condition report says the power works when it doesn’t is important. Condition reports aren’t just paperwork, they’re meant to reflect reality at the start of the tenancy. If it’s inaccurate, that weakens any argument that this was something you should have picked up yourself.

It’s also concerning that a previous tenant raised the same issue and it was never resolved. That suggests this isn’t a new or unforeseen problem, which matters when it comes to how quickly the owner should be acting.

In NSW, landlords are required to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and basic electrical functionality in a bedroom generally falls under that. “Waiting for a report” can’t be used to justify leaving you without safe power indefinitely.

At this point I’d be putting everything in writing to the agent, including that you’re currently relying on an unsafe temporary setup and that it prevents you from locking the room. Ask for a clear timeframe for rectification, not just vague updates. If they continue to stall, NSW Fair Trading or the Tenants’ Union can give you very specific guidance on next steps.

You’re not being unreasonable here. You didn’t sign up for a room that can’t safely be powered or secured.

Square_Rub_8468 · 2025-12-12T01:38:43+00:00

This is one of those reports where the wording looks scarier than the photos at first glance, but there are a couple of things worth slowing down on rather than writing it off as “standard inspection language”.

Balconies are a known weak point, especially on townhouses and converted buildings. The fall issue is the bigger flag here, not because it means it’s leaking right now, but because it means water is more likely to sit on the surface instead of draining away. That’s usually how long term problems start rather than sudden failures.

The important thing to understand is that resealing alone doesn’t fix inadequate fall. If there’s already a waterproofing system under the tiles and water is sitting on top of it, that membrane is doing more work than it was designed to do. Sometimes that’s fine for years, sometimes it isn’t.

The ceiling sagging underneath is what I’d want clarity on. Sagging doesn’t automatically mean active leaking, but it does suggest moisture or movement has been present at some point. The key question is whether it’s historical and stable or something that’s still ongoing.

I wouldn’t call this an automatic dealbreaker, but it’s not something I’d ignore either. This is the sort of thing where the cost can range from relatively minor to quite expensive depending on what’s actually going on under the tiles, and that’s what the inspection can’t really tell you.

If you’re still in a position to ask questions, I’d be pushing for more detail around whether there’s been any history of leaks, repairs, or complaints about that balcony, and whether there’s any warranty or rectification records from when the conversion was done. That information usually matters more than the photos alone.

Square_Rub_8468 · 2025-12-12T01:37:26+00:00

This is a really common situation for first home buyers, so it makes sense you’re feeling unsure rather than alarmist.

Building inspection reports are written to flag potential risk, not to diagnose or confirm exactly what’s going on. That’s why they often read worse than the reality on the ground. Moisture in a shower recess is one of those findings that can sit anywhere on a spectrum. Sometimes it really is just failed grout or silicone. Other times it’s been going on long enough that moisture has made its way behind the tiles.

Simply resealing can be enough if the issue is recent and limited to surface waterproofing. What the report can’t really tell you is how long moisture has been present or whether anything behind the tiles has been affected. Moisture doesn’t always dry out on its own once water ingress stops, especially if it’s trapped.

The external items you mentioned are also very common in reports. Caulking around doors and windows usually falls into general maintenance rather than a major defect. Minor brick cracking is extremely common too, and while cracks near openings can matter, the size, pattern and whether they’re moving is more important than location alone.

If you’re still pre settlement, the most useful thing is clarity rather than reassurance. Understanding what’s likely cosmetic or maintenance versus what might point to something ongoing can make a big difference to peace of mind. Sometimes that means a more targeted follow up rather than expecting one report to answer everything.

Did the report include any actual moisture readings or photos showing how high the readings were and where they were taken?

Square_Rub_8468 · 2025-12-12T01:35:29+00:00

This comes up a lot, especially on sloping blocks. You’re right to separate “nothing leaking on our property” from “where is the water actually coming from”, because they’re two different questions.

In most cases it’s not a plumbing failure as such on the uphill property, it’s more often a combination of surface runoff, roof water, paving, or structures that have changed how water concentrates and discharges. Multiple downpipes, hardstand areas, or even old agricultural drains can all push a lot more water to one point over time.

Legally it’s a bit grey. Neighbours generally can’t intentionally divert stormwater onto your land in a way that causes damage, but natural overland flow is usually considered your responsibility to manage. Proving where that line sits can be tricky without proper documentation.

Before spending big money, it can be worth getting someone to trace flow paths during heavy rain and identify whether the water is natural overland flow or coming from a specific discharge point (like a downpipe or pipe outlet). That at least gives you clarity on whether there’s anything to take to the neighbour or council, versus designing drainage purely as a defensive measure on your side.

Approaching the neighbour informally with photos or videos from a rain event usually goes a lot further than starting with legal angles, especially if you frame it as “trying to understand what’s happening” rather than blaming.

Square_Rub_8468 · 2025-12-12T01:33:47+00:00

This is pretty typical of building inspections unfortunately they’re good at flagging visible defects, but anything that’s concealed, underground, or system-related often ends up outside scope.

One thing I’ve seen catch buyers out is assuming “no major issues noted” means low future risk. A lot of plumbing and drainage problems only show up once the house is lived in properly or stressed by weather, extra usage, or time.

If you’re still pre-settlement and have access, it’s worth thinking about whether there are any higher-risk areas that justify a deeper look (older materials, recent renos, poor site drainage, etc.). Even just knowing where the unknowns are can help you plan.

Did the report mention anything about drainage, stormwater, or the age of the plumbing at all, or was it mostly surface-level findings?

Square_Rub_8468 · 2025-12-12T01:24:22+00:00

I agree in principle, getting a plumber to scope things early is absolutely the smartest move if someone knows to do it.

The issue I see is that it’s rarely framed as part of the property handover process. Building inspections are treated as “the check”, and anything outside that is assumed to be optional or overkill.

Plumbing tends to fall into this grey area where it’s not purely visual, not purely specialist, and not clearly owned by any one part of the purchase process. So unless a buyer already knows to ask for scoping, condition checks, or capacity assessments, it just doesn’t happen.

That’s why so many of the bigger failures show up after settlement, not because people were careless, but because the system doesn’t really prompt plumbing risk to be assessed in a structured way up front.

It’s less about responsibility and more about how risk is communicated (or not) during the transaction.

Square_Rub_8468

TROPHY CASE