Please help!

little_legs_3

i'm buying a house and we were give a HIP pack but were told by our solicitors that it was out of date (the seller had not done one, but given us the one the people who had owned the house 9 months ago done). we were then asked to pay by our solicitors to have the correct searches done as it was out of date, which we refused as we thought it up to the seller to do. we heard no more about it till a week later, when we got the contracts through, it had info about the house, which stated there was no extentions done, when there were 3 that have been done. we are now having to pay to have the searches done to make sure they are leagal, as the HIP pack states that there were no planning applications. we are thinking of dropping out, but the fees we will have to pay feels unjust and wrong. the situation feels wrong as we are being pushed to get through the paper work as quick as poss when we feel that the estate agents, seller, and our solicitors are trying to cover up the fact the extentions are not legal as there has been slips of the tounge. where legaly do i stand? and where should i go from here? is there any way of dropping out and getting out of paying the fees? we have proof that our solicitors know that the HIP was out of date . please help

chickmug

Take a look at this link for HIPs pack info but I think you may need to phone the contcat number as I have never heard of a pack used by a past seller being used again.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/BuyingAndSellingYourHome/Homeinformationpacks/DG_171685

Your comment quoted below seems you think there is a conspiracy going on with everyone against you? However I must say I find your post hard to read and understand so someone else, without brain fog, may come along and clarify???

"we feel that the estate agents, seller, and our solicitors are trying to cover up the fact the extentions are not legal as there has been slips of the tounge"

DVardysShadow

If you have any doubts and you are not getting sensible answers, walk away. Just leave it. It looks bad to me that the vendors are leaving at 9 months and worse that they are trying to do it on the cheap with a recycled HIP. It looks to me like they bought a bad'un and want to get shot of it and I am guessing, but I think the only reason they bought it was because they were on a budget. Likewise, I imagine you are on a budget too. If you are on a budget, you can do without the grief which may come with this property - it will hurt you far more than it would hurt people not on a budget.

I've made assumptions about the situation. If they are wrong, do post again to put me straight.

david29dpo

First of all, the present HIP is illegal. If the house was bought by the present owner 9 months ago, the title register & plan, Index, sale statement, Local Land charges search and Water searches CANNOT be reused. The EPC can be reused plus the HIP needs a PIQ. Mention this to the sellers. The extensions will show on the LLC so must have been done by the present seller.

Bufger

was the solicitor suggested to you by the estate agent? you should find a solicitor yourself and they work on behalf of you so if they were suggested by the others (or if they're really cheap and seem unprofessional) then pull out.

DawnW

I think I would walk away in your situation. It could get a lot worse. You may be saddled with fees unfortunately, but that is house buying for you, I am afraid. I would also complain about the solicitor if he / she has not done their job properly, and for heavens sake don't use that firm again - find one recommended to you by a work colleague, friend or family if possible.

little_legs_3

thank you all for your help! it has been really helpful!! i know my post was really confusing and i appoligise. i think i am just going to walk away i know im going to get left with the fees but i would rather that.
my solicitor is usless and didn't relise it was against the law to sell a house with out a HIP pack! but iv been researching and the estate agents are also at fault as they are not ment to sell a house with out a valid HIP pack.
many thanks for all your help it has help me make up my mind to walk away!! thanks!!

chickmug

little_legs wrote: »

the estate agents are also at fault as they are not ment to sell a house with out a valid HIP pack.

Why not make a complaint to Trading Standards who police HIPs?
Why let them get away with it?

david29dpo

Hear Hear.

Richard_Webster

our solicitors are trying to cover up the fact the extentions are not legal

How are they doing that?

we have proof that our solicitors know that the HIP was out of date .

Well, yes, that would be the case because:

we were give a HIP pack but were told by our solicitors that it was out of date

we were then asked to pay by our solicitors to have the correct searches done as it was out of date

So the solicitor asked for the money so he could get on with the searches to move the transaction forward because the old searches were no good...

we are now having to pay to have the searches done

Well, yes, he did ask for the money before didn't he?

Sorry but I can't see what OP is on about. Her solicitor said that the searches would have to be redone. She ignored this because she didn't think it was fair. If she wanted to buy the property then she would need to have the searches done either by her solicitor or by getting the seller to do them again.

If the seller would not do so then there is stand off - so OP could pull out over an argument about the cost of searches if she wants, but is that really sensible? Her solicitor warned her the search would have to be done and she is cross because he is doing his job by repeating the warning. What is he supposed to have done wrong?

As to works/extensions at the property do the estate agents particulars of the property make it clear that there have been extensions etc? Do the sellers say anything about any extensions done by them or their predecessors in any of the questionnaires completed by them that OP' s solicitors received?

The point about the searches is not directly connected to the extensions. If OP's solicitor had reason to believe that there were extensions then he should have asked the seller's solicitors to produce the appropriate consents. If he didn't know and he has only found out because OP has told him he will now have to ask the questions. Even if the local search shows permissions for one or more extensions the solicitor would probably still want to see the permissions themselves.

DVardysShadow

Richard_Webster wrote: »

Sorry but I can't see what OP is on about.

Hmm.

As to works/extensions at the property do the estate agents particulars of the property make it clear that there have been extensions etc? Do the sellers say anything about any extensions done by them or their predecessors in any of the questionnaires completed by them that OP' s solicitors received?

The point about the searches is not directly connected to the extensions. If OP's solicitor had reason to believe that there were extensions then he should have asked the seller's solicitors to produce the appropriate consents. If he didn't know and he has only found out because OP has told him he will now have to ask the questions. Even if the local search shows permissions for one or more extensions the solicitor would probably still want to see the permissions themselves.

It is this area which is of most concern to her. Something is clearly spooking her quite badly. The circumstances around the rest of it spook me quite badly too - 9 months since last sale, reused HIP, lack of rapport with the professionals involved. Something is clearly not quite right here.

I respect your contributions here greatly, but perhaps, Richard, on this one you are focussing too much on the process and seeing how it can all be put back on track, when it is the deal rather than the process which is the problem. Either way, I am speculating that the OP is going for this one because of a lack of budget - when the property looks far more suited to a developer who has the resources to iron out the issues and sell the property on unencumbered. Obviously, the current owners would take a substantial hit if they went down that route - but our OP is the person we are helping - and if she went ahead, she would be the one taking the hit.