House purchase, gone wrong.

horizon

benood wrote:

Unfortunately this sort of thing can happen - it happened to us a few years ago on day of exchange - seller had been double crossing us all the way along.

However, you might be able to sell your survey to the new buyers? I've heard it's possible but not been there myself - saving some money at least - depends if you can face it - whatever you do don't give any sight of it to the other side before you've had a cheque clear!

I did consider seeing if the new buyers would buy my survey.
But then thought, the new buyers would most likely not want or need a survey, knowing I'd had one done, and was still "buying"

silvercar

horizon wrote:

I did consider seeing if the new buyers would buy my survey.
But then thought, the new buyers would most likely not want or need a survey, knowing I'd had one done, and was still "buying"

I sold my survey, unique situation in that the gazumping buyer's were in a bidding war against people who had had a survey a year ago.

In general it is not a good idea as the surveyor would only be liable to the people who first instructed them, not a third person.

Never assume that the current buyer's must be happy, they could have their own reason for wanting the property and could have money set aside to do necessary repairs that you are unaware of.

Floxxie

horizon wrote:

I did consider seeing if the new buyers would buy my survey.
But then thought, the new buyers would most likely not want or need a survey, knowing I'd had one done, and was still "buying"

No if they are having a mortgage then they will need one done by their Lender's surveyors but you can sell your searches onto the new buyers.

And just one point concerning the new 'buyers'; they may have viewed the house prior to your offer going in. The EA must pass on all offers no matter when they appear in the process. In terms of the EA getting higher commission - don't think so, they would want this sale to go through as it was almost there - enormous risk on starting the process again.

If you really want the house then find the extra money. If you don't want to then walk away....

Floxxie

EdInvestor wrote:

Now if the solicitors would only get their act together and sort the searches/conveyancing in a timely manner (as they most certainly can do if they try), then the whole thing could be done and dusted in about 3 weeks and the likelihood of gazumping would be far less.

In a volatile housing market, it's the 2 month delay that causes the problem, as prices can move quite dramatically in that time.

The fault lies with the slow and lazy solicitors who haven't improved their efficiency at all in 30 years, despite the fact that the info in most cases is now online.

Yes a lot of the searches can be done online but some can't and require responses from councils etc. and it is this that causes delays, not to mention enquiries arising from the searches.

I have dealt with fast track solicitors and have found that their searches take 48 hours but they don't do them all and they only ask a small number of questions to the other parties solicitors. Which is fine until you come to sell and something major has been missed....

And of course other sources of delays are the Mortgage Lenders and their paperwork, the surveyors and their paperwork and the buyers and the getting together of their money. This is not even taking into account the number of properties in a chain and people's holidays. It's a wonder any houses get to completion!

horizon

Floxxie wrote:

And just one point concerning the new 'buyers'; they may have viewed the house prior to your offer going in.

We were the first people to view the house, which was at 9.30am of the day it went on the market. We put the offer in and had it accepted within two hours of the viewing.
This was before any other viewings had taken place.

benood

Silvercar is right but I'm sure the Gazumpers could do a deal with your surveyor at a very much reduced cost to transfer liability which might leave all three of you quids in. No harm in following up - you might even get the opportunity to talk them out of gazumping!

Floxxie

horizon wrote:

We were the first people to view the house, which was at 9.30am of the day it went on the market. We put the offer in and had it accepted within two hours of the viewing.
This was before any other viewings had taken place.

OK, the vendors must have kept the property on the market - that's not unusual until survey has been done or they decided when it was ok to take it off. I have had several properties that the vendor has not wanted to take the property off until exchange; I suppose they have a fear of losing their buyer. I have always told them that it doesn't give their purchasers a good feeling. And really the EA should have made you fully aware of what they were up to....might be worth ranting at them?!

reehsetin

BobProperty wrote:

Wonder how much that would be? Also could be difficult to enforce or prove breach.
An option (for anyone interested) is the right but not the obligation to buy at a fixed price within a fixed period of time. I have never seen it used, only heard of the theory. I put it to my learned friend that an option is a simpler, and easier to enforce, "tool".

i dont know about what value the consideration should be but if the buyer were then to be gazumped they could alledge breach of contract? also if it were put into the lockout contract that if the seller were to gazump the buyer they would be liable for the buyers costs.
this is just what i would assume im sure a legal eagle could backup or trash that

reehsetin

oh ive just found

The court will uphold lock-out agreements (i.e. prior collateral contracts that during a short stipulated period a seller will not negotiate for a higher price from other prospective buyers) – Pitt v PHH Asset Management Ltd [1994] 4 All ER 961

Pitt v. PHH Asset Management Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 327 upheld an agreement to negotiate exclusively with another person for a fixed period of time, in effect a "lock-out" agreement. This decision was of course in the context of a house purchase but there seems to be no reason in principle why it should not apply to any contractual negotiation. The key to such agreements is firstly that they should be framed in negative terms i.e. restricting the right of the negotiating parties to deal with other persons rather than to seeking to impose a vague general obligation to negotiate in good faith; and secondly that they should be expressed to last for a fixed period of time.

steve700

I haven't read the whole thread so this may have already been mentioned, but:

from what I've seen on all of the 'Buying Abroad' programmes, in some countries you have to pay a deposit of maybe 20% when buying and if you pull out of the purchase, the seller gets to keep your deposit.

If the seller decides to pull out, you would get your deposit back plus the same again from them - Sounds fair to me...........