Exchanged but can't complete - serious mess

cte1111

We found out a year after completion on our house, that there had been a charge on our property. The solicitors had carried on working on this behind our back and sent us a year's worth of paperwork once it had been sorted out.

Not sure if this helps the OP, but was a bit of a shock at the time.

In our case, it was a previous tenant who had claimed some sort of interest in the property. I've no idea how or even if completion actually happened on our property. I don't think we were registered as legal owners with the Land Registry until after the charge had been sorted out in court. But we were not involved at all and as I said only found out about it afterwards.

Richard_Webster

If the buyer is not allowed to raise any requisition on the matters shown in the official copies dated xxx 2009 then he can raise a requisition on a new matter that was not shown so that suggests to me that it is down to the seller to sort out - buyer's solicitor can raise a valid requsition which seller's solicitor cannot deal with, therefore buyer not bound to complete.

pinkshoes

FTB_Newbie wrote: »

it's actually an application for a notice. Vendor needs to sort this out with her ex but neither party are budging. Now we are in breach of contract, with 4% interest per day that we don't complete. Which I will push for the solicitor to cover...

No-one can move, broadband being cut off tonight and post redirected now...

So is this actually a notice, or just an application for one i.e. at the time you exchanged the notice hadn't gone through, and now since then it's now an official notice??

FTB_Newbie

G_M wrote: »

Unless I've missed it in one of your 3 threads on this problem, you still have not given details of the Notice (or application).

I'm guessing it's an AN1?

Applied for under which eligability (section 9)?

Can you post details of the Notice?

Its actually an application, its not on the land registry documents that we were sent for us to approve but in a suppliment.

Our vendor didn't tick the boxes declaring any undisclosed interest in the property. We queried this before exchange and our solicitor did get something in writing from the vendors solicitors. Although the interest was disclosed in the HIP.

I think it will now go to court to get the application removed. Hopefully within the next month. Meanwhile I think we are liable.

FTB_Newbie

Richard_Webster wrote: »

If the buyer is not allowed to raise any requisition on the matters shown in the official copies dated xxx 2009 then he can raise a requisition on a new matter that was not shown so that suggests to me that it is down to the seller to sort out - buyer's solicitor can raise a valid requsition which seller's solicitor cannot deal with, therefore buyer not bound to complete.

The problem is that it was on the HIP, in the notes

"Applications are pending in Land Registry, which have not been completed agaisnt the title."

I wish I had made more of an effort to research everything I didn't understand in the HIP. Although the solicitors were recommended and not cheap.

Ulfar

As others have pointed out you cannot rely on search information in the hip, I would always want my solicitor to do fresh searches.

In addition anything major like this should be flagged up by your solicitor (this is what they are being paid for) as it will prevent a mortgage being issued or as in this case completion.

G_M

FTB_Newbie wrote: »

Its actually an application, its not on the land registry documents that we were sent for us to approve but in a suppliment.

Our vendor didn't tick the boxes declaring any undisclosed interest in the property. We queried this before exchange and our solicitor did get something in writing from the vendors solicitors. Although the interest was disclosed in the HIP.

I think it will now go to court to get the application removed. Hopefully within the next month. Meanwhile I think we are liable.

I'm guessing it's an AN1? (Application for Notice)

Applied for under which eligability (section 9)?

Can you post details of the Application?

Meanwhile I think we are liable.

Imposible for anyone to comment till you provide more info.

Homersimpson

wuckfit wrote: »

in which case you cannot complete with the notice in place, I think. I cannot see how you are liable for this mess.

I don't think that the mortgage company not being prepared to lend on the property because of the notice would be deemed to be the vendors fault. If the OP is right and he could buy the place for cash then the vendor isn't holding up the transaction as the OP can buy (and complete the contract) but can't secure funds to do so, i'm pretty sure that the contract doesn't say "unless the buyer can't get a mortgage"

If the notice prevents transfer of the land title, however, then I think the vendor would be at fault as they are unable to transfer the land to the buyer and whether or not the buyer can get the money in this circumstance becomes irrelevent as the vendor can't complete the contract.

If it does come the OP's way I would be taking independant legal advice on this, bear in mind that alot of solicitors use licenced conveyancers for house purchasers and hence they have limited legal training. I would defenatly expect the liability in this circumstances to come back to the solicitors, it sounds like they have done something wrong or missed something if this is the case.

Best of luck and please let us know how you get on.

FTB_Newbie

G_M wrote: »

I'm guessing it's an AN1? (Application for Notice)

Applied for under which eligability (section 9)?

Can you post details of the Application?


Imposible for anyone to comment till you provide more info.

We don't have any more information on the application, as we weren't made aware of it. I'm guessing its for home rights. The vendors ex lived there and they have a child, they were never married. Apparently according to our vendor, the ex has never been on the mortgage or the deeds, he didn't contribute to the purchase or the mortgage and the case was rejected in court previously.

I don't understand how this can be allowed to happen and for the innocent party to be liable.

RabbitMad

Richard_Webster wrote: »

If the buyer is not allowed to raise any requisition on the matters shown in the official copies dated xxx 2009 then he can raise a requisition on a new matter that was not shown so that suggests to me that it is down to the seller to sort out - buyer's solicitor can raise a valid requsition which seller's solicitor cannot deal with, therefore buyer not bound to complete.

FTB_Newbie wrote: »

I don't understand how this can be allowed to happen and for the innocent party to be liable.

FTB_Newbie, I don't think you are liable. Richard knows what he's talking about and assuming everything you've written is correct you are not liable.

Even if technically you were in breach I think it would be your solicitors that are liable for any costs as they appear to have been negligent.

Good luck on getting this sorted out

I would be speaking to my sols and asking very simple questions that they can only give a yes/ no one word answer to.
e.g Have we completed? Is the vendor or buyer liable for the breach? Have you been negligent? Has the vendors solicitor been negligent? Should I be instructing another solicitor?
If they won't speak to you on the phone get down to their office and insist on speaking to them...



..and then rush home to update this thread as we all love a good saga on here, the juicer the better.