The problem is that it requires a 3300€ removal just to inspect for further damage of unknown and possibly large size. If it is large and the homeowner is unable to cope, the lender is at risk.
Because tbe lenders are at risk here, they won't lend unless you do the removal so that the lender can inspect.
Given housing prices, it seems that the 3500 is merely (potentially) wasteful and (definitely) irritating. It isn't gonna make it impossible to sell a place.
You are wrong to ignore it. Why would you ignore the very point that I'm going out of the way to explain? That's just asking to fail to understand.
The person who wants to shift 300000 isn't the problem. It is the bank who is saying no to the mortgage. Banking has been described as "picking up pennies in front of a steamroller". For them, a housing mortgage has limited upside, and a large possible downside. They stay in business by avoiding hitting that downside.
Therefore a property that can't be inspected property, can't get a mortgage. Full stop.
The prospective buyer can't buy without a mortgage. Sure, the buyer could pay for the removal. But now you're asking the buyer to pay for a large repair, just to decide if this might be the house for them? And that payment comes out of what they could have spent on another house! This makes no sense.
The only party that has the right incentive to fix the problem is the current owner. It's part of getting your house ready for sale. That sucks - they thought that they were improving their home, and they made it worse. But still, they created a problem, and nobody else is going to volunteer to help.
Congratulations. You've just arrived at the whole point of the article.
The owners paid money to improve their house. Now they have to pay more to undo that if they want to have a chance of selling it. That's a rather nasty thing to be hit with when you're trying to sell your house so that you can move.
Because tbe lenders are at risk here, they won't lend unless you do the removal so that the lender can inspect.