Can't Complete New Build - Can't Cancel Either

elspeth240

ruggedtoast wrote: »

For what its worth apparently some sort of precedent has been set for judges just awarding the builders the deposit already paid, and letting them whistle for the rest.

They can forget about the deposit but possibly, they wont be stung for the remainder of the value.

Where did you hear about this? can you provide any more information, i.e link etc

Thanks

GDB2222

elspeth240 wrote: »

Where did you hear about this? can you provide any more information, i.e link etc

Thanks

Sadly, it's not true. There was a case the other way around, where the builder was allowed to keep the deposit despite selling the property for more money (to someone else once the original buyer failed to complete).

I think that the buyers could not rely on the get-out clause if they were to frustrate the build. However, if the mother were to go to work on the building site and upset all the workers so much that they go out on strike, well that might be okay. Fancy a job as a roofer?

lukekelly_2

hearts wrote: »

2. For those saying "Did it not strike anyone as sensible to have the get out clause in line with the mortgage offer?" You may be right but the way this couple went is the way it's done. So it was not their fault.

It "being the way it's done" does not remove an individual's responsibility for their actions. The couple here are in a horrible position, I'm glad that people are offering their advice and help and I wish them the best. They are though entirely responsible for their own situation. I don't say this out of spite, but because the attitude where always someone else is to blame for the consequences of people's attitudes discourages people from learning from their mistakes, and so avoiding such horrendous situations. Handing over £5 with little thought is one thing, but when signing away several year's salary you owe yourself the consideration of pouring over every line and every possible scenario.

pinkshoes

plumduff55 wrote: »

There is very slow progress to the flats, the external and internal walls are built but there is no roof as yet.

plumduff55 wrote: »

When signing the original contract in March 08, the completion date was given as August 08 with a clause that should the building be delayed due to unforseen circumstances the buyer could cancel the agreement without penalty in August 09.

I would certainly get a contract lawyer to look at what they've signed, as if they're facing bankruptcy, then they might as well cough up another £500 or so...

The above seems vague. How would they define "unforeseen circumstances"?? To me it would be things like a fire, all builders dying of the plague, building site condemned by health and safety etc...

There are 1000s of people out there unemployed, particularly builders, so one could argue that it is not an unforeseen circumstance that has delayed the build, but poor planning on behalf of the builder (or financial trouble???) thus only managing very slow progress, when in fact the building should have been completed 6 months ago!

It could be worth a try...

Ulfar

What is the reason for the delay, the credit crunch should not have been a factor.

If the builders didn't have funds themselves to complete the build on time when the contract was signed then I don't think they will really want to end up in court.

The contract is woolly and who knows what the judge will decide.

russ21282

I've never bought a new build, so I don't know much about all this, but from my perspective, it seems like a big con.

They paid a deposit for a house that was supposed to be completed last August, the builders never kept their end of the bargain and say it will be complete a year later, the buyers aren't allowed their deposit money back are legally obliged to complete?
It's the builders fault the buyers can no longer get a mortgage as they have taken so long to complete the house.

Now in any other retail environment they would never be allowed to get away with any of this. Why is it different for houses?

In my view, the house wasn't complete in time, the builders never delivered what they promised so the buyers should be entitled for a refund and be able to cancel the contract. They can't just say "oh, it will be ready in a year". Surely trading standards could do something with this?

geoffky

GET A POSSE TOGETHER AND KNOCK IT DOWN..:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

ILW

russ21282 wrote: »

I've never bought a new build, so I don't know much about all this, but from my perspective, it seems like a big con.

They paid a deposit for a house that was supposed to be completed last August, the builders never kept their end of the bargain and say it will be complete a year later, the buyers aren't allowed their deposit money back are legally obliged to complete?
It's the builders fault the buyers can no longer get a mortgage as they have taken so long to complete the house.

Now in any other retail environment they would never be allowed to get away with any of this. Why is it different for houses?

In my view, the house wasn't complete in time, the builders never delivered what they promised so the buyers should be entitled for a refund and be able to cancel the contract. They can't just say "oh, it will be ready in a year". Surely trading standards could do something with this?

It appears from earlier posts that the contract stated an expected completion date of August 2008 but a contractual latest completion of August 2009. The bit I cannot understand is why the buyer or their solicitor agreed to this.

ruggedtoast

elspeth240 wrote: »

Where did you hear about this? can you provide any more information, i.e link etc

Thanks

Sorry just something I heard on another thread. I think the circumstances were that there was no clause inherent in the contract binding the builder to any completion date. It went to court and the defendant "got away" with just losing their deposit as the judge decided the contract wasnt really fair and the builders had done pretty well out of it anyway (as GDB222 said).

As far as I know its unusual for builders to put a get out for the completion date into the contract. The intention is usually to completely screw the buyer so they'll be liable for the cost of the flat til doomsday, whether or not the builders ever complete it.

A lot of people just ended up using the solicitors appointed by the builder who never flag this up. Obviously this is unreasonable and unfair and should be challenged in court as well as with the original solicitor. Unfortunately trying to sue a lawyer and hire another lawyer to argue with another lawyer about the definition of reasonable is a pretty sure fire way to stomach ulcers and bankruptcy for most normal people. Which is why they keep getting away with it.

Unfortunately this is all a bit moot in this case as the one year exit clause seems reasonable to me. From what you've said they have signed a contract committing themselves to paying for the build by August 2009 at the latest, but havent ensured they had funding in place to pay for it.

Speaking to a debt counsellor now may be a more realistic course of action than trying to get out of the contract, though the contract should certainly be checked out.

plumduff55

I do not blame anyone for the situation my son and dil find themselves in - especially not them, they were just unlucky to buy at a very bad time.

They saved a good deposit for their first home and trusted a solicitor to draw up the necessary papers and the builders to complete the building.

Thanks to everyone for their comments and best wishes.