Vendors pull out AFTER exchange of contract

michaels

Could the OP pursue a small claims track - obviously not for the full value of the 'loss' but might get a quick 5k and draw a line under things?

Gimlet

Welshwoofs wrote: »

I need to find the line to surf between 'fighting for what's right' and being pragmatic. I don't intend to be a martyr, but neither do I intended to be shafted and hung out to dry just so a couple of spoilt and morally corrupt people can do as they wish without consequences.

From your well reasoned posts in the face of such an emotional situation I am confident you will get the 'best' outcome WW.

My own view is that the vendors are bluffing, I don't think I would be able to prevent myself from calling their bluff and following through to the bitter end on this one. Even as an observer coming back and reading the updates on this thread makes me seethe :mad:

JayZed

There's one thing I don't understand. This property, if I recall correctly, is somewhere in the Cotswolds. The new build that the vendors were planning to buy is in London. Does this mean that the vendors were moving because one of them had a new job in London? Not necessarily, I suppose - one of them could be working in London already and just making a long commute.

But I do wonder if something has changed in their personal/professional circumstances which means that they no longer want/need to move to London and want to stay where they are? It might be worth trying to find that out - might help in some way with reaching a settlement.

Troubled_Joe

michaels wrote: »

Could the OP pursue a small claims track - obviously not for the full value of the 'loss' but might get a quick 5k and draw a line under things?

Potentially but there is no guarantee that it will be allocated to the small claims track.

There are other factors that a court will consider on allocation aside from just value and I'm pretty sure when the pleadings are reviewed a judge will think this wholly unsuitable for the small claims track and bump it up.

theodog

We moved recently and were afraid that our vendor was going to do the same thing to us.We were VERY re-assured by our solicitor who told us that if it happened not only would WE get ALL costs incurred to us including our deposit(removals, solicitors etc) but EVERYONE in the chain affected would too.The fact that you have NO CHAIN leads me to think that they know what they are doing as they are only going to lose a relatively small amount of money but you MUST make sure that your solicitor chases all this up.Sit down and work out EXACTLY how much you are going to lose and hastle them.GOOD LUCK

Welshwoofs

JayZed wrote: »

But I do wonder if something has changed in their personal/professional circumstances which means that they no longer want/need to move to London and want to stay where they are? It might be worth trying to find that out - might help in some way with reaching a settlement.

Well this is what we wonder too - there's been no mention of the job falling through (quite the opposite) so one would assume they'd still need to move unless they particularly like spending half their waking hours travelling....which does make me think that the moment all this is settled the house will pop back on the market with hopes of achieving the asking prices the equivalent houses in the area are now up for.

Call me cynical.....

GDB2222

Gimlet wrote: »

My own view is that the vendors are bluffing, I don't think I would be able to prevent myself from calling their bluff and following through to the bitter end on this one. Even as an observer coming back and reading the updates on this thread makes me seethe :mad:

The problem is the costs. Quite easily £20k per side at first instance. But, if the vendors run a spirited defence, there could be expert witnesses, more experienced counsel, etc, and the costs could be say £50k per side. Then, of course, it can go to appeal....

Assuming the vendors lose, they could easily be presented with a combined bill of £40k - £100k (treble that if it goes to appeal). They could be bankrupted, leaving WW to pick up her own costs. Even if she is successful and the vendors are not bankrupt, she won't get all her legal costs paid.

Litigation is a truly great spectator sport**, but not so good for the participants.

** Rather slow, though. So, you have to be patient.

theodog

Too B***Y right !!!This has really angered me and is exactly the sort of behaviour that has the counrty on its knees now it's called SELFISHNESS

epsilondraconis

WW, in your reply could you not threaten the legal route, but provide them with say 4 months to find another property (one that matches their affordability). Essentially you are giving them a 4 month grace period to remove themselves from your house.

Perhaps they may agree to that because they may think that, because you are a cash buyer, you are likely to have sufficient funding to pay for the legal route.

It's disappointing that our civil justice system doesn't seem to provide the protection that people like WW deserve. The posts by people such as Troubled_Joe are an eye opener for me.

I'm off to bang my head against a brick wall on behalf of WW.

ILW

Welshwoofs wrote: »

Well this is what we wonder too - there's been no mention of the job falling through (quite the opposite) so one would assume they'd still need to move unless they particularly like spending half their waking hours travelling....which does make me think that the moment all this is settled the house will pop back on the market with hopes of achieving the asking prices the equivalent houses in the area are now up for.

Call me cynical.....

I would be very surprised if that was NOT the case.