Is a sewer scope worth adding to an apartment inspection in Sydney?

R

RemiRidge

First-time buyer
I’m considering a 115 m² apartment in Sydney at roughly A$1,482,000. The building is older, with mature trees near the street, and the general inspection is booked. However, the inspector says the private sewer line is not included.

A separate scope would cost far less than the A$97,280 estimate I was given for a full replacement, but I’m unsure how useful it is for an apartment. Is it a routine extra, or mainly justified by slow drains, odours or previous blockages? If you chose not to scope in similar circumstances, what tipped the decision?
 
I’d lean towards doing it, but first establish which section the scope can actually reach. With an apartment, the expensive line may be common property rather than a pipe serving only your unit. Ask for the proposed start and end points, whether you receive footage, and who would be responsible if damage is found.
 
I wouldn’t automatically order one just because there are trees. If the camera only travels through a short branch inside the building, it may never get near the tree-exposed section. Do you have any plumbing layout or information from the strata records about past blockages, repairs or recurring complaints?
 
Also, don’t let the A$97,280 replacement estimate anchor the decision before you know what it covers. Was that estimate specifically for this apartment’s line, or a broad full-replacement scenario? Ownership, access and the length of pipe involved could change the relevance of that figure considerably.
 
I’d combine the two investigations. Ask the inspector to note moisture, drainage smells and visible plumbing defects, while separately asking the strata manager about sewer work, relining, blockages and any planned expenditure. Then have the scope provider describe in writing exactly which pipe can be viewed. That avoids paying for footage of the wrong section.
 
The budget context matters too. After settlement you still have moving costs, the first mortgage payment, insurance excess and whatever immediate repairs the inspection uncovers. Furniture can wait; an emergency fund is harder to rebuild. I’d pay for the scope if it reaches the vulnerable section, but not merely because the potential replacement number is frightening.
 
A clean scope is only a snapshot, not a guarantee that the whole system is sound. Access can be limited, and some sections may not be visible. That doesn’t make it useless, but the report should identify where the camera stopped and any areas it could not assess.
 
Agreed on the limits, though I still think records may be more informative here than a narrow camera run. In an apartment purchase, recurring strata levies or possible shared repair costs could affect the post-settlement budget even if the pipe directly serving the unit looks fine.
 
My practical decision rule would be: confirm responsibility and camera reach first. If the scope can inspect the older section running towards those street trees, add it. If it can only inspect a short internal branch while the relevant sewer is shared, put the effort into the strata history and keep the scope money in the repair reserve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top