bought off plan cant get a mortgage

pmurray

Fine, I was not quibbling but giving my opinion, you of course are entitled to one as well.

It does not help people in a situation where they will end up going into bankruptcy, this will not help the economy either but we shall just beg to differ.

AMILLIONDOLLARS

If he bought off plan in 2006 for completion in 2008. He might have a very good case because of the 12 month delay. He'll need a very good solicitor to fight his case. Phone the Law Society they will have a list of solicitors specialising in property/contract law.

AMD

franklee

pmurray wrote: »

Because, funding WAS in place at time of purchase.....then the lenders changed their lending criteria, who is at fault?

The buyer is at fault. Expecting to get a mortgage in the future or expecting to sell another property in time does not constitute funding in place. So in this example funding was not in place:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=16772627&highlight=#post16772627

pmurray wrote: »

HI everyone, I have just read all your comments re buying off plan and then being unable to complete.....I to am in this situation where I am unable to complete as I have been unable to sell property (my deposit is therefore tied up and I cannot get a mortgage) I knew that this was on the cards and told Wimpy about it some 8 weeks ago, suggesting that we negotiate a new date and they complete someone else property that had funds avaiable, they simply would not budge and just state that they will commence charging me interest as from Friday 19.12.08 when I should complete. My solicitor just advises me that it was in the contract. The same thing happened to me in March when I bought a property at Auction, on the day of completion they advised me that there was a problem and the sale could not go ahead, but my solicitor has been chasing them since then for compensation and I still have had nothing.....whats your thoughts and any advise would be appreciated.

What would be needed is a firm mortgage offer that isn't going to expire before completion or if relying on sale of another property that would need to have exchanged contracts.

GDB2222 wrote: »

I'm sorry to hammer on about this, but as long as people keep avoiding responsibility for their own actions, this country will continue to slide into oblivion.

Couldn't agree more.

I would have sympathy to anyone who put their hand up and admitted they got carried away and were reckless, but I really don't get these claims not to know the risks they were taking and that it isn't their fault. It is the attitude of property is a one way bet to riches so lets over reach that has caused this whole mess, pricing the prudent buyer out.

franklee

pmurray wrote: »

It does not help people in a situation where they will end up going into bankruptcy, this will not help the economy either but we shall just beg to differ.

Removing any concept of risk from the property market is the worst thing that could be done. There have to be consequences for reckless actions in order to stop people bidding too high and allow the market to correct so normal people can buy average properties without landing themselves in unsustainable debt.

You were lucky to come out just owing the 10K in my book, it could have been a lot worse. Hopefully you can come to some arrangement for paying it off.

FlyingDonkeys

Hi I agree with you. I find it sad that no one gives credit to people who have lost faith with government pension schemes, endowments etc. A buy-to let for a lot of people is about being pro-active to invest in something you can see that is useful as opposed to speculators and their funny paper deals, where non of know what is going down! Rant over but I do think this is a valid comment missing from the debate on BTLs.

GDB2222

Winner wrote: »

Hi I agree with you. I find it sad that no one gives credit to people who have lost faith with government pension schemes, endowments etc. A buy-to let for a lot of people is about being pro-active to invest in something you can see that is useful as opposed to speculators and their funny paper deals, where non of know what is going down! Rant over but I do think this is a valid comment missing from the debate on BTLs.

There is one difference. When you invest money in a pension scheme you earn the money, and then you invest it. Virtually all BTL'ers borrowed most of the purchase price, so they were heavily gearing their investments.

silvercar

GDB2222 wrote: »

There is one difference. When you invest money in a pension scheme you earn the money, and then you invest it. Virtually all BTL'ers borrowed most of the purchase price, so they were heavily gearing their investments.

Whether the money is borrowed or not, the BTL ers took all the risk.

northerner79

Be very thankful you aren't buying this property and they aren't going for performance of the contract! You are best off losing your despoit and not losing another 50k!!

Richard_Webster

And it was a gamble, whether for investment or owner-occupation. I concede that someone needing a property to live in might have been more desperate to make the gamble.

Surely someone wanting a house to live in wouldn't be prepared to wait a year or two for it - they would buy a second hand property or a new one that was finished or virtually finished.

I have to agree that people should have known the risk they were tasking, and if they didn't, then their solicitor should have warned them about it, and if he didn't then they might have a claim against him!

GDB2222

silvercar wrote: »

Whether the money is borrowed or not, the BTL ers took all the risk.

Agreed, but by gearing up most BTL'ers increased their risk dramatically. This is something they chose to do voluntarily.

maybe I've missed the point here?