Vendor has owned house less than six months

jamesparker_2

Hi my opinion is that you should talk to the vendor! If you are really interested to sell your property then it depends on you that what you like!
But be care full in every matter and do proper paper work else you will be in trouble because hale make waist!

AMILLIONDOLLARS

Well the house I mentioned earlier has now been sold:eek: Crash! what Crash????


AMD

Julfulbub

Rockporkchop wrote: »

OP - does the vendor have a valid reason for selling the property after only six weeks? It would worry me that there is something wrong with the house or the area.

Been incommunicado for a couple of days but thought I would answer questions and finally update on situation. This thread may help someone at a later date.

The vendor is selling the property as he bought to stop the chain from collapsing the last time round when we had to pull out. His intention was to always sell it on. The house is perfectly fine and I know the area well as both sisters in law live around the corner - this is the reason for the move so we don't have to put our son into out of school care.

Julfulbub

penguine wrote: »

If you really want the house, can you take out a mortgage with another provider who will be willing to lend under these conditions?

Yes we can do this but we are currently on a good rate with our current lender. To do this would add a minimum £500 a month to our repayments - not a road I want to go down.

Julfulbub

I have spent the last couple of days talking to various IFA's who were not aware of this poilicy. After further investigation it has come to light that this is a blanket policy throughout the whole of the RBS Group and a few other lenders. They are expecting that in time all lenders will follow suit.

Our underwriter escalated this to his credit risk team but it seems they are not prepared to investigate our vendor's personal circumstance or make an exception in our case. Tomorrow I have to start a complaints process, my solicitor advises me that I should be able to claim the costs of the survey I paid out for, legal costs incurred and compensation for time wasted. I imagine this could be a very long drawn out process which will no doubt will end up with the Ombudsmen.

I have been upfront with them since we persued this application that we were dealing with a new vendor and nobody flagged this to be a problem. There is nothing within my offer or t&c which says its a problem. The t&c's talk about their right to withdraw offer which is basically if they have doubts about your ability to repay the loan, your identity or any information supplied by us or if they become aware of something the did not know when the loan was issued. None of this criteria applies to us so tomorrow I will be askingon what grounds they have withdrawn our offer. I don't expect any joy.

We are going to talk to the vendor to see if he will wait for the six months to pass but am really not hopeful.

Fire_Fox

Julfulbub wrote: »

He only bought it about 6 weeks ago. We have a FTB chomping at the bit to get in our place and I don't really want to move out and rent. I also don't think vendor would wait another 4.5 months for us, I think he would remarket property as not all lenders enforce this restriction. Plus our mortgage offer was only good for 3 months. We could apply for a mortgage with another lender but we would never get the deal we have with our current lender and it means starting over, paying for another survey etc and then we could lose our buyer. The whole thing seems silly and such an inconvenience.

Can you sell yours and rent the house you are going to buy? Presumably it's empty and the vendor won't be able to sell to anyone else who needs a mortgage?

Eyesparky

This is a new one on me. So anyone who renovates and resells properties is being cobbled by the banks under "money laundering" criteria. Nonsense. The banks seem hell bent on destroying the free market at all costs at the moment. The OP has had a valuation that shows that the developer has added value (or managed to buy well) but the banks own valuation is not considered good enough. I wonder if the banks will be applying this rule to themselves ... after all they are repossessing a number of properties at the moment and flipping them straight onto the market. If they have not owned the properties for more than 6 months, are people allowed to raise mortgages in order to buy these repos. Something tells me that the situation will be treated very differently.

Doozergirl

Eyesparky wrote: »

This is a new one on me. So anyone who renovates and resells properties is being cobbled by the banks under "money laundering" criteria. Nonsense. The banks seem hell bent on destroying the free market at all costs at the moment. The OP has had a valuation that shows that the developer has added value (or managed to buy well) but the banks own valuation is not considered good enough. I wonder if the banks will be applying this rule to themselves ... after all they are repossessing a number of properties at the moment and flipping them straight onto the market. If they have not owned the properties for more than 6 months, are people allowed to raise mortgages in order to buy these repos. Something tells me that the situation will be treated very differently.

Well that's it, isn't it. I bought a repossession that was rendered unmortgageable (ie. a 'risk') and have rectified that situation. So the banks are happy to use me to take that risk off their hands but I'm potentially not allowed to put it back into the marketplace?

Eyesparky

Doozergirl wrote: »

Well that's it, isn't it. I bought a repossession that was rendered unmortgageable (ie. a 'risk') and have rectified that situation. So the banks are happy to use me to take that risk off their hands but I'm potentially not allowed to put it back into the marketplace?

Hope it all works out for you. The last thing the market needs is more needless roadblocks undermining liquidity.

Milliewilly

Eyesparky wrote: »

This is a new one on me. So anyone who renovates and resells properties is being cobbled by the banks under "money laundering" criteria. Nonsense. The banks seem hell bent on destroying the free market at all costs at the moment. The OP has had a valuation that shows that the developer has added value (or managed to buy well) but the banks own valuation is not considered good enough. I wonder if the banks will be applying this rule to themselves ... after all they are repossessing a number of properties at the moment and flipping them straight onto the market. If they have not owned the properties for more than 6 months, are people allowed to raise mortgages in order to buy these repos. Something tells me that the situation will be treated very differently.

Hear Hear. The more posts I read about Valuation Surveyors, Banks terms for mortgage etc the more it reinforces my view that they simply don't want mortgage business. It would be nice if the OP could find a few repo's that their bak are selling on and then go back to them with their precedent.