England I am a first time buyer and a single woman with a tiny support network. I am still renting at the moment, and I'm at the very beginning of my journey (spoken to mortgage brokers, gone on a few viewings, looking at conveyancers). I keep seeing properties with things I would like or need to change, even when I exclude full on fixer-upers, but I'm intimidated because I understand the trades are in a state. While I'm handy with IKEA furniture and I'm pretty proud of the job I did researching the perfect rawl plugs for my wall shelves, I don't really want to be responsible for upgrading a kitchen or bathroom all by myself. I don't have anyone in my life I can ask to help me, so I'd be completely at the mercy of hired workers. How fucked is it all, to be blunt? Mentally I've set aside about £25k which is depressing as I'd rather use that to rebuild savings, but even that feels low nowadays considering how much half decent work costs, and considering how expensive everything is now. Not sure what to think and could do with some insight. Relevant info: I am and will be staying in London.

Buying a house with a 9 year old boiler with no service records. Seller had originally agreed to pay for both a gas safety check and boiler service due to the lack of service history. It has since transpired that she has only performed a gas safety check and not a boiler service. I have since requested to have the service done. However, she has contacted her gasman, who claims that there ‘isn’t much difference’ between the two services and that it is ‘the same certificate but will just say boiler service’. The seller is now refusing to pay for a boiler service based on the gasman’s advice. I was under the impression that these were two distinct services and that the service would check the internal components of the boiler in more depth for any damage/wear. Is it advisable to have both done or is a gas safety check sufficient?

This is in Kentucky. Purchased home in August 2023, it was a flip and we of course have been discovering issue after issue. We had previously consulted with a lawyer in 2024 over a different issue and decided to just let it go. The issue at hand now is a leaking roof. On the disclosure it stated the roof was brand new, few months old, indicated they had replaced it in November 22 and checked no on the box asking if they had done any repairs other than a full replacement. Fast forward to now, we are discovering that a portion of the roof (over the deck and the laundry room which was an addition) was in fact not replaced with the person who came to look at it stating "this is the oldest looking roof I have ever seen." My question is, is this worth pursuing action against the sellers? Especially given the length of time we've now been in the house. Of course, this was missed in our inspection, but the wording on those documents were sure to clear him of any liability. We don't yet have an estimate on what the repairs will be, but this seems pretty cut and dry to me on it being a blatant lie. We bought the house under the belief that the outside was new and would not require much attention, but instead we've been pouring thousands of dollars into it since moving in. ETA: We did have an inspection done at the time of purchase. The inspector simply stated the roof was inspected and included disclosures that roofs leak clearing them of liability. To add on to this, I had suggested at the time of inspection that the disclosure was not honest as they stated the basement had never leaked and on the day of inspection there was active water penetration. Unfortunately, we had a realtor that gave horrible advice and wanted to side with the sellers/other realtor because they seemed like "good guys." I know that was a red flag, but I can't change the past.