Could I sue for being mis-sold

moneybunny123

Flyboy152 wrote: »

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

That's what you'd see if you looked through my window right now. BUT YOU KEEP MISSING MY POINT!!!

ILW

mandbaby wrote: »

Nope. Someone else who misses the point. If anything I'm implying that posters on here are giving the wrong advice. Advice that isn't needed - because I know all this already, AND it wasn't asked for, AND it's all useless without a time machine.

I was saying that if your solicitor failed to popint the the tie in with the mortgage company, was it of any relevence to the instruction you have given him? Which I would assume was to get the house purchase sorted out and nothing more.

moneybunny123

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I am going to presume that part of the offer is free legal. You are quite at liberty to take advice from another solicitor, at your own expense.

I can only speak for myself, but in my case you'd be wrong again. Mine certainly wasn't free. I seem to remember it was incredibly expensive (twice as much as the last time I paid for conveyancing).

iB1

You keep going on about the solicitor, but surely it's the mortgage advisor - if anyone - that you would have a case with?

What happened with the mortgage advisor? What did they tell you? Was it face to face? Over the phone? Done by letter? E-mail? To me it should be the mortgage advisor who would/should have explained the complexities of the mortgage deal? Not the solicitor.

However, again if he gave you stuff to read and you just signed it and send it back, then you'd have no case.

dopester

bowieben2 wrote: »

Sorry to jump in on this thread... But just wanted to add were doing a similar scheme to the OP and our developer also insisted we use a solicitor from their "panel". Its a panel of 3 solicitors and we can pick which one want. I argued it as i have a very good solicitor that I would have preferred to use but it was basically if you want the house you have to use one of ours, end of.

Im not saying if youre prepared to walk away they wont give in, but then you risk losing the house.

I've been prepared to "lose the house" in the bubble years, both with buyers willing to borrow more from banks than I was willing to risk taking on....

...and shared-ownership scheme buyers happily entering schemes to keep values inflated. If no one entered these "shared ownership schemes" then values would have to fall back to levels people can afford.

If people are willing to use one of the builders'/developers'/ shared-ownership panel's solicitors in order to buy.. that's their own decision. I choose my solicitor where there is no risk of them being even slightly compromised in acting in my best interests.

We've seen it all before* but what can you do if buyer's choose to use a Shared-Ownership scheme's recommended solicitor.... they've made their decision. "Have to buy.. or risk losing it.. will complain about it later if it goes wrong or something I don't like about the scheme."

*

The excesses of the building boom and the unease expressed in Parliament about the close relationship between the builders and the building societies led to the passing of the Building Societies' Act of 1939.

For example, it became impossible for one solicitor to represent both sides. The common practice was that the building society's solicitor would be used by the society and the buyer and often the seller too, enabling the speedy processing of the building society application forms and the issue of a Land Registry certificate.

evoke

mandbaby wrote: »

Nope. Someone else who misses the point. If anything I'm implying that posters on here are giving the wrong advice. Advice that isn't needed - because I know all this already, AND it wasn't asked for, AND it's all useless without a time machine.

LOL. Why start a thread if you already know what the 'correct' advice is?

BadgerFace_2

Have you actually read this clause about the mortgage? What EXACTLY does it say?

My bet would be that it's nothing to do at all with the contract you were given poor advice on, but more to do with the fact you cannot release equity in your house under a shared equity mortgage. I would also bet you are not tied to one lender, but will have a lot of trouble moving, again, because of the shared equity...not because the original builder has specified so.

If there is a genuine clause in the contract that states you can only borrow from the Halifax...I will eat my hat. And more than that, it would most probably be an unfair and unenforceable clause in the contract.

Flyboy152

dopester wrote: »

...and shared-ownership scheme buyers happily entering schemes to keep values inflated. If no one entered these "shared ownership schemes" then values would have to fall back to levels people can afford.

There would have to an awful lot more homes, in shared ownership, to have had made as much as an impact on values as you would imagine.

Flyboy152

BadgerFace wrote: »

Have you actually read this clause about the mortgage? What EXACTLY does it say?

My bet would be that it's nothing to do at all with the contract you were given poor advice on, but more to do with the fact you cannot release equity in your house under a shared equity mortgage. I would also bet you are not tied to one lender, but will have a lot of trouble moving, again, because of the shared equity...not because the original builder has specified so.

If there is a genuine clause in the contract that states you can only borrow from the Halifax...I will eat my hat. And more than that, it would most probably be an unfair and unenforceable clause in the contract.

I wonder what would have happened if the Halifax did go bust a couple of years ago, would the OP have been penalised for no longer borrowing from them? :rotfl:

moneybunny123

iB1 wrote: »

You keep going on about the solicitor, but surely it's the mortgage advisor - if anyone - that you would have a case with?

What happened with the mortgage advisor? What did they tell you? Was it face to face? Over the phone? Done by letter? E-mail? To me it should be the mortgage advisor who would/should have explained the complexities of the mortgage deal? Not the solicitor.

However, again if he gave you stuff to read and you just signed it and send it back, then you'd have no case.

With regard to being tied to the Halifax, you mean? if so, they told me NOTHING. We had a meeting face to face. She asked if I would prefer fixed/variable/tracker/capped over 1yr/2yrs/5yrs/10 yrs. Listened to my circumstances, advised me to go for a 2yr fixed, then put the paperwork in the post. She never once said to me that the developers insisted I use only one lender (the halifax).

If you're not referring to this, you'll have to explain who you do mean.