Is a sewer scope worth adding to the inspection in Santiago at CLP 263,200,000?

F

full_story

First-time buyer
Established
I can either pay for a sewer camera inspection now or keep that money available for the move, and neither option feels entirely comfortable. This is an older 35 m² duplex in Santiago priced at CLP 263,200,000. The booked inspection does not cover the line serving the property, while mature street trees make me reluctant to ignore it. A full replacement has been estimated at CLP 15,040,000.

The camera check is inexpensive beside that potential repair, but I don’t know whether buyers normally order one for a property of this age without symptoms such as slow drainage. The deadline is close, and a surprise repair after completion would compete with service charges, basic furniture and the emergency fund. Would you add the scope, and should I first establish whether any section of the line is shared with the other dwelling?
 
One extra detail: paying for the scope would not prevent the purchase, but an unexpected replacement soon after completion would cut deeply into the emergency fund once moving costs, the first mortgage payment and basic furniture are included. I’m also unclear whether a duplex line is necessarily exclusive to this unit or could join a shared section.
 
Given the age, trees and size of the possible repair, I would add the scope. You are not predicting failure; you are buying information before your deadline passes. The important question is the one in your follow-up: has anyone confirmed where your responsibility ends and whether any section is shared with the other dwelling or maintained through common charges?
 
Also ask exactly what the CLP 15,040,000 estimate covers. A full replacement figure is not very useful unless it identifies the route and the portion assumed to be private. Before ordering the camera work, confirm that the operator can access the relevant line and will identify location, blockage, roots or visible damage rather than merely saying it passed or failed.
 
I agree about clarifying ownership, but I would not treat a scope as automatically decisive. Camera images can reveal a concern without telling you when it will become an actual failure, so they may create another negotiation rather than a clean answer.

Still, the downside here is asymmetric: a modest inspection extra versus a CLP 15,040,000 potential job. I’d postpone nonessential furniture before reducing the emergency fund available for immediate repairs, service charges or an insurance excess.
 
The practical sequence seems straightforward: first establish whether the line is private or shared; then get the scope price, access requirements and promised output in writing; finally ask the general inspector whether any drainage warning signs appeared inside the duplex. If you proceed, keep the camera findings separate from the replacement estimate and ask whoever prepared that estimate whether the observed section actually matches their assumed scope of work. That should give you usable information before the deadline without treating every imperfection as a CLP 15,040,000 emergency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top