Vendors pull out AFTER exchange of contract

Gillianh2

RabbitMad wrote: »

Hopefully for WW the reason for no update is she is busy packing and arranging removal men.

Hopefully for all us addicted to the soap its because WW is staring into the distance in disbelief at the latest response from the lunatic vendors.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that the vendors latest letter goes like this:

Dear WW, Further to our recent communication we would like to inform you of a new development. We've been to see a hypnotist who has progressed us back through our past lives and it turns out that I was actually John 'Crump' Dutton. This means that I actually own 4,000 acres of the cotswolds and my ancestral claim trump any right you have to this property via our recent exchange of contracts and I'm sure every sane judge in the land will uphold this. Therefore you are wasting your money trying to take me to court but as a generous gesture we are willing to let you have the deposit you paid back, minus a small admin fee that we must apply as we have been looking after it for you.
Yours M. Hatter

Now that did make me laugh:rotfl: And is probably very near the truth:rotfl:

Cant wait for the next update. Keeping everything crossed for you WW

Pete111

Come on WW you big tease, I know you are on MSE, I have seen you post on other forums today!

Dinah93

It's worrying when you turn into a stalker in pure desperation to get the latest act of lunacy from the vendors.

whathavewedone

I had to defend someone who had done this to a family with two toddlers three or four years before the case landed on my desk.

During that time she had gone through several solicitors and I ended up with the case because she was the partner of a commercial client of the firm (he was a really nice guy, she came across as a very nasty piece of work).

By the time it came to our firm there was nothing we could do but quibble over costs really. She had to complete for the price that was agreed in the late 90s and pay nearly 100k in interest and damages. Then there were costs on top of that. Of course her fella (our commercial client) paid it all for her. It left a bad taste in my mouth to beat them down on their costs but I was paid to do a job and had to do it to the best of my ability. I take some comfort from the fact that the value of the property had gone up exponentially since contracts were exchanged so they wouldn't have been out of pocket.

I never did get to the bottom of why she didn't complete in the first place. She didn't live in the property, she'd rented it out over the entire 3 year period and owned other properties which she'd mortgaged to the hilt. I think she just changed her mind on a whim and then thought she could do as she liked. She was angry with the buyers for stressing her out. Never mind that they'd been made homeless having sold their own property and had spent weeks in a hotel thinking she would complete. They had no option but to rent once they realised it was hopeless.

Oh and she left our commercial client who paid for and sorted out the whole sorry mess after a couple of years for some other sucker no doubt.

People who do things like this are the scum of the earth.

Welshwoofs

Ok all... a wee update

They're still not moving (I don't expect any changes of heart at this stage) and we're still keeping Specific Performance on the table as an option. Obviously their last suggestion that we trot along and get a smaller/unsuitable property is not workable - if our needs would be met by a 2 or 3 bedroomed we'd have been looking for that sort of property in the first place :rolleyes:

So what's been happening this week is that our legals engaged a surveyor to go and value 2 equivalent properties which are on the market (currently for £40k, and £52k more than our purchase price) with the idea that if they really want to keep the house they've got, then can pay us the difference to purchase an equivalent in the same area.

I very much doubt they'll agree readily to the idea mind you...so we'll see where it goes next!

Jemima5317

Oh WW - boo! Was hoping for something much more positive, but keep your chin up (sorry for not having anything more constructive to say!)
Jx

hazey31

Welshwoofs wrote: »

I very much doubt they'll agree readily to the idea mind you...so we'll see where it goes next!

Yeah, I'm not sure they'll go with that one either, funnily enough....

Let's hope they start seeing sense soon!

skylight

Oh WW. I was hoping it was sorting itself out.

Its annoying where you have to light-cat-foot around them in the early stages and not go straight for the jugular.

Chinkle

This sounds like an unusual route to take and clouding the issue.

Surely this is just going to make the vendor think that they weren't getting market value on their property and in their minds justify why it's good not to go through with the sale.

Is this what you really want too?

Welshwoofs

Chinkle wrote: »

This sounds like an unusual route to take and clouding the issue.

Surely this is just going to make the vendor think that they weren't getting market value on their property and in their minds justify why it's good not to go through with the sale.

Is this what you really want too?

Well from what the legals say, the point on this one is that you have two routes - you either go for Specific Performance (which could be a very long time stuck in limo) or you go for damages. Damages is made up of costs and consequential losses, the latter being quite hard to calculate.

For us, one of the issues is that simply taking the costs and finding another, equivalent, house is not possible. This sale was, at the vendors' request, very drawn out. In the time between them accepting out offer and them pulling out the local housing market has shifted upwards. Properties are moving fast, sometimes for over asking price. So buying an equivalent property would cost us another £40k+ on what the agreed purchase price of the one we're supposed to be in now.

When it comes down to it, the purchase was not a 'heart' purchase it was simply the only property on the market which ticked all the boxes we needed to fill and some we wanted to fill. Now there are two other properties on the market which also tick the same boxes...but although they're equivalent in size/type/area/decorative condition they're much more expensive.

So if our current vendors were gambling on the local market and them getting more money for their house...they were right. If it went on the market now, 5 months after they accepted our offer, they could well achieve another £40k. We're adamant that any increase they can gain on their property isn't going to be at our expense..which at the moment it would be if we caved in and shelled out £40k+ for an equivalent house.

In short...after this long ramble....it's about going for whatever is easiest to achieve, either forcing them to complete or getting them to pay the difference between our offer and what we'd have to shell out for an equivalent.

We seem to be only a short way down what will probably prove to be a long, long road. It seems that at this point the legals are simply getting the figures bolting down and then giving them a choice between a rock and a hard place and making them realise that they can't wriggle out of this scott free.