Warracknabeal homebuyer finds house in disrepair after purchasing property online

Maretta Osgood’s move to regional Victoria after six years in Western Australia was marred by a discovery that left one of her children physically ill.

The nearly 60-year-old woman, who cares full-time for her youngest son with autism, said she wanted to return to her home state for his benefit.

Mr Osgood said he bought a house in Warracknabeal after inspecting it online while living in Western Australia.

That’s where his problems began.

Osgood said she didn’t know anyone who could inspect the property for her, so she relied on outdated photographs to assess its condition.

“I told this real estate agent I was in Western Australia and I didn’t have any family at the time who could come see it and they didn’t indicate that seeing it would affect my decision (to buy it).“ she said.

He said the property was littered when he arrived with his children in March late one night after flying from WA, but that didn’t bother him.

“People have things. I was ready for it,” she said.

But he said they were met with an overwhelming smell when he turned the key to the front door.

“I wasn’t prepared for the smell and the cans of cat food just wrapped up and thrown everywhere and I wasn’t prepared for the feces from the front door to the back door.”

Underneath clothes, papers and furniture, she said layers of cat feces had seeped onto the hardwood floor.

That night she, her two children and her dog slept in the car.

About two weeks later, the local council visited them and informed them that, while the house was structurally sound, it was not considered habitable and could pose a potential health hazard.

“We became homeless. I know it sounds melodramatic, but it’s really true,” he said.

Limited information

Ms Osgood said she did not feel she was putting her family at risk by buying a house sight unseen because she had a positive experience with the WA agent who sold her her first home, which she also bought sight unseen.

Mrs Osgood said when she contacted the Victorian agent to purchase the property, explained that he had no experience buying a home, had a son with complex health needs, and requested that the interior be emptied of all his belongings and furniture.

The agent negotiated $10,000 off the $145,000 asking price because the house was “dirty,” but Osgood said the smell and amount of dirt was never conveyed to him.

“If the agent had told me that there was animal dirt from front to back, I couldn’t and wouldn’t have bought it because it was a terrible psychological and physical danger for my son.

“(He) became very disoriented and stressed and didn’t know what to do.”

ABC contacted the estate agent but they declined to comment.

Warracknabeal rolls up his sleeves

Osgood said his family couldn’t live in their house because it needed to be repaired.

He said his out-of-pocket expenses would be at least $10,000 to cover short-term lodging and trash pickup.

“The biggest story really is the friendship and generosity of the people of Horsham and Warracknabeal,” he said.

During the first week, people came to ask if the family needed help with meals, showering, or doing laundry.

“And when the rain comes, he drove over there to make sure we were inside and dry.

“If we hadn’t had the people, we wouldn’t have stayed.

“We would have left.”

Ms Osgood has lodged a complaint with Consumer Affairs Victoria.

In a statement, the watchdog said it took such complaints seriously and would investigate them if necessary.

Ethical obligation to disclose

Real Estate Institute of Victoria president Jacob Caine urged potential buyers to do their best to inspect a property in person before purchasing.

He said that in Ms Osgood’s case, if the impact of the dirt was significant enough to justify the local council advising against living there, then it should have been disclosed.

While it is illegal for officers in Victoria to knowingly conceal material facts about a property, Cain said it could be difficult to determine what constitutes a material fact.

The Sale of Land Act 1962 considers a material fact to be information that a reasonably informed buyer with an unbiased understanding of the property market would use when deciding whether or not to purchase land.

That included information such as structural damage that compromised the integrity of the building or a serious crime that was committed there.

Material facts also included information known to the seller or agent that would be relevant to the needs of a specific buyer even if it were irrelevant to others.

Caine gave the example of a buyer with respiratory complications interested in buying a house near a chemical plant.

He said that even if there was no legal requirement to disclose this information to the buyer, “ethically, agents should disclose that information if they know it could impact the buyer’s experience.”

Melbourne buyer’s agent and director of Property Investment Professionals of Australia, Cate Bakos, echoed the need for an independent in-person inspection.

Ms Bakos said that if estate agents knew that a buyer had a specific problem that could be affected by a property, the agents were morally obliged to try to understand the risks the property could pose to the buyer.

“Break it down and ask a few key questions: ‘What are we looking for? What might you be sensitive to?'” he said.

But Bakos said that while agents had to act ethically, responsibly and honestly, their duty was to the seller and buyers could not assume agents would represent their interests.