Threatening letter from unsuccesful buyer

Soubrette

Glad there is a few of us around

What a shame we don't all have feedback attached to us so we can tell what kind of person we are in real life.

I'd rather sell slightly less to someone trustworthy then take a high offer from someone shonky (not because I'm nice but because who wants to be on tenderhooks waiting for them to do you over)

Sou

RobertoMoir

Theogirl wrote: »

However I stand by what I said, what the OP did was very underhand and I can honestly say I would never knowingly behave in this way.

But would you claim £5000 off someone for something which almost certainly didn't cost that much?

It seems to me that neither "side" is exactly a paragon of virtue.

Milliewilly

Its not clear as to whether a second contract was sent out by the OP' solicitor. I guess not if the F&F forms and SPI forms were not sent. That upto the FTB'er to sue the OP's solicitor then but even so to sue they will have to demonstrate a loss and that loss will only be their costs not £5K. In litigation you cannot claim for personal anguish etc. In all likelihood it will cost more to bring the action than anything they may or may not (most likely) get.

The OP may not have told their solicitor about the FTB'er thats why they never got any forms???? This would be unusual however as the EA should for an offer to proceed and be accepted write to both parties solicitors with the price accepted. If the EA was on the ball this should have been done the next day and certainly before the survey (usually a couple of weeks later) was carried out before buyer no.1 came back out of the woodwork. Hmmmmm something a bit fishy here the more I think about it.

The buyer in this case may be shonky but they completed first and at £10K more than the FTB'er.

I had a similar situation when selling a car on Ebay. It was on at £14K and no bids on the saturday it finished. That lunchtime a guy came round and offered me £15K which I accepted and gave me £500 deposit. I had to let the auction run as there was less than 24 hours to go so couldn't pull it. To my horror I watched the bidding go to £18K that evening. So, the moral question was did I give the guy his £500 back and sell to the highest bidder or stick with the deal we had done? I stuck with the deal we had done. People said I was mad and should have given his deposit back and my conscience would be clear at that.

Milliewilly

Theogirl wrote: »

The vendor or their solicitor or their agent should have told them a deal was already on the table though and then they might not have arranged the survey or might have upped their offer. It is not a case of continue to market. The buyer was already there!

I disagree with the letters as the law supports this kind of underhand behaviour and it isn't a nice way to conduct oneself. However I stand by what I said, what the OP did was very underhand and I can honestly say I would never knowingly behave in this way.

There wasn't a deal on the table when the FTB's survey was done - it was the day after the survey had been done the original buyer came back on the scene.

guppy

StevieJ wrote: »

Struggle to see how a letter from one person to another is libel, I thought proof of loss (e.g. reputation) was required I am not sure what loss could have been made when she should have been the only one to have seen the letter.

The letter was also copied to the estate agent

Soubrette

Milliewilly wrote: »

If the EA was on the ball this should have been done the next day and certainly before the survey (usually a couple of weeks later) was carried out before buyer no.1 came back out of the woodwork. Hmmmmm something a bit fishy here the more I think about it.

The buyer in this case may be shonky but they completed first and at £10K more than the FTB'er.

I am not sure Buyer 1 was def shonky - perhaps just awkward or perhaps more sinister, delayed hoping to negotiate a drop in price - who knows.

How do you know those forms hadn't been sent out though? Am I missing something obvious:o

I had a similar situation when selling a car on Ebay. It was on at £14K and no bids on the saturday it finished. That lunchtime a guy came round and offered me £15K which I accepted and gave me £500 deposit. I had to let the auction run as there was less than 24 hours to go so couldn't pull it. To my horror I watched the bidding go to £18K that evening. So, the moral question was did I give the guy his £500 back and sell to the highest bidder or stick with the deal we had done? I stuck with the deal we had done. People said I was mad and should have given his deposit back and my conscience would be clear at that.

Good for you. Why not suggest it as a moral dilemma to the mse team, I think alot of people would do the same as you but a sizeable proportion would agree you would mad.

Sou

Milliewilly

OP was saying no forms were sent to the FTBer so I was concluding from that that the alarm bells should have been ringing for them that the sale could well have been off.

I am deducing (maybe wrongly) that the OP effectively told her solicitor the FTB'er deal was dead and to proceed with the original £10Ker so the solicitor would have been quite correct not to notify of a contract race and issue a second contract to the FTB'er

Again there's nothing illegal here that the FTB'er can claim for.

Soubrette

Milliewilly wrote: »

OP was saying no forms were sent to the FTBer so I was concluding from that that the alarm bells should have been ringing for them that the sale could well have been off.

I am deducing (maybe wrongly) that the OP effectively told her solicitor the FTB'er deal was dead and to proceed with the original £10Ker so the solicitor would have been quite correct not to notify of a contract race and issue a second contract to the FTB'er

Again there's nothing illegal here that the FTB'er can claim for.

So in your scenario the estate agent and the OP know the FTB is in a contract race (but is actually out of the picture) but the solicitor doesn't know so can't inform the FTB sols of this fact.

Here's another even more strongly worded quote from this website http://www.home.co.uk/guides/buying/gazumping.htm

Solicitors are legally obliged to inform any buyers involved that they are in a contract race

The OP with the compliance of the estate agent prevented the FTB from exercising their right to withdraw and incur no further costs or to increase their offer or even push their sol to exchange faster. We know why of course, the OP did not want the FTB to win the race but wanted them as the back up horse.

I'd be even more worried if I were the OP now - if this website and your scenario are both true then she prevented the FTB from exercising their legal rights in the house buying purchase. Let's hope the estate agent didn't point that out to her.

Like I said - the OP may inadvertently have allowed the FTB an 'in' into suing her personally for costs. If it were me then I'd be going for costs incurred after the other offer was accepted and the any costs incurred whilst suing for these costs.

Thanks for the chat millie, I agree with you that there is something fishy going on here but taking it at face value it's alwaysvnice to hear other people put their point of view over politely

Sou

Milliewilly

Soubrette wrote: »

So in your scenario the estate agent and the OP know the FTB is in a contract race (but is actually out of the picture) but the solicitor doesn't know so can't inform the FTB sols of this fact.

Here's another even more strongly worded quote from this website http://www.home.co.uk/guides/buying/gazumping.htm



The OP with the compliance of the estate agent prevented the FTB from exercising their right to withdraw and incur no further costs or to increase their offer or even push their sol to exchange faster. We know why of course, the OP did not want the FTB to win the race but wanted them as the back up horse.

I'd be even more worried if I were the OP now - if this website and your scenario are both true then she prevented the FTB from exercising their legal rights in the house buying purchase. Let's hope the estate agent didn't point that out to her.

Like I said - the OP may inadvertently have allowed the FTB an 'in' into suing her personally for costs. If it were me then I'd be going for costs incurred after the other offer was accepted and the any costs incurred whilst suing for these costs.

Thanks for the chat millie, I agree with you that there is something fishy going on here but taking it at face value it's alwaysvnice to hear other people put their point of view over politely

Sou

Sorry I don't see what legal rights the FTB'er has from the link?

If two contracts had been issued then fair enough - its still a race though and the 10Ker won. The link says the seller may issue two contracts via the solicitor but in this case they didn't (and why would they to run up twice the conveyancing costs?) so I can't see any legal claim from the FTB'er to the OP or their solicitor or the EA ? The EA is after all acting for and being paid by the vendor and is not at liberty to divulge confidential info about the sale process to who has essentially become the underbidder?

Wickedkitten

Milliewilly wrote: »

Sorry I don't see what legal rights the FTB'er has from the link?

If two contracts had been issued then fair enough - its still a race though and the 10Ker won. The link says the seller may issue two contracts via the solicitor but in this case they didn't (and why would they to run up twice the conveyancing costs?) so I can't see any legal claim from the FTB'er to the OP or their solicitor or the EA ? The EA is after all acting for and being paid by the vendor and is not at liberty to divulge confidential info about the sale process to who has essentially become the underbidder?

If that were actually the case, the OP would have had no reason whatsoever to instruct the EA to hold fire until contracts were exchanged with buyer 1.