brand new flat not so brand new

tus100

just received a holding letter from the developer saying they are now investigating..........

BargainMad_3

hazyjo wrote: »

I was going to suggest that and say get them to pay ALL your costs, but deleted it. Got to thinking - surely if they've actually bought the other one, it'd be a nightmare... most places can't be sold on to anyone needing a mortgage until they've been owned for around a year (as far as I know), plus it would be on their credit record they'd bought, sold then bought again in a short period of time, would affect any mortgage offer, and surely wouldn't go down well with mortgage provider... it just sounds as though it would be absolute hell for everyone. It would be what I'd want, and what I'd love them to push for, but I just don't know if it would work.

Jx

The mortgage side of things isn't really the problem. Someone buying a show home that has had a 1,000 pairs of feet tramping through, toilets used, taps run, doors opened and shut is still officially getting a new build. It might elicit a discount from the builder for this reason but in the cold world of mortgage underwriting a person is still inherently getting a new build from a developer and the mortgage options are not "opened up" because of temporary feet inside a property.

That is not to detract from the feelings that the OP has over being duped on this matter.

loveGSDs

i agree with devotee, you should get moved to one of the more expensive top floor flats.

hope you get it resolved and it wont put a downer on your new home

sooz

I think you must find out from your mortgage broker ( or if you used the developers, an independent one), what mortgage offers would have been available for you buying a used, rather than new, property. Find the cheapest offer, & work out your additional costs over 25 years on the mortgage you have.

That should be your starting point for compensation figure.

Also try to get figures from other local agents the difference in price between new & used flats on a development like yours. Cars are said to lose 10%,( isn't it?), as you drive them off the showroom.

The flat should be thoroughly professionally cleaned, including oven by a specialist oven cleaner (this is different to normal cleaning asthey take it to pieces ). If the walls are marked, they should all be repainted.


Get the cleaning & painting done first, set a solicitor on to them with the figures, & get on enjoying your new home. I can't see how they can give you another flat, your changing mortgages would be a nightmare!

hazyjo

BargainMad wrote: »

The mortgage side of things isn't really the problem. Someone buying a show home that has had a 1,000 pairs of feet tramping through, toilets used, taps run, doors opened and shut is still officially getting a new build. It might elicit a discount from the builder for this reason but in the cold world of mortgage underwriting a person is still inherently getting a new build from a developer and the mortgage options are not "opened up" because of temporary feet inside a property.

That is not to detract from the feelings that the OP has over being duped on this matter.

I meant if they were given a brand new apartment - they have already bought one and can't just move into another one without officially buying it. Who would then be able to buy the apartment they'd left? They'd have to sell it on to someone. Can't just swap the deeds or anything, surely... They've legally bought an apartment. They can't just move out into another one without first selling the one they're in.

Jx

sooz

BargainMad wrote: »

The mortgage side of things isn't really the problem. Someone buying a show home that has had a 1,000 pairs of feet tramping through, toilets used, taps run, doors opened and shut is still officially getting a new build. It might elicit a discount from the builder for this reason but in the cold world of mortgage underwriting a person is still inherently getting a new build from a developer and the mortgage options are not "opened up" because of temporary feet inside a property.

That is not to detract from the feelings that the OP has over being duped on this matter.

but if you buy a show home you know what you are getting. And tget come with the top spec choices, granite over laminate, limestone over tiles etc. You get the discount for it being used for viewings, but with usually better fittings.

iheartbristol

To those saying that it wouldn't make much difference to the mortgage available whether the house was brand new or not, I once worked for a lender who had special restrictions on LTVs/Fees/Valuations etc when it came to brand new properties.

cassidy0111

tus100, have you sought independent legal advice? I hope this works out for you.

devotee

iheartbristol wrote: »

To those saying that it wouldn't make much difference to the mortgage available whether the house was brand new or not, I once worked for a lender who had special restrictions on LTVs/Fees/Valuations etc when it came to brand new properties.

I think all lenders have this, especially LTV so you'd have to have a set minimum deposit % for a new build.

The property that OP bought is still a new build as never owned before (not purchased by anyone), but as it's been tenanted then that should have been made clear to the OP prior to the purchase and duly reflected in price.
But either EA didn't know and was mislead by the developer or they were both in it, really doesn't matter to the OP and should be both investigated.
I'd find it weird if the EA claims they didn't know the flat was tenanted, I'm sure they would have spotted the belongings when showing the flat to prospective buyers.

tus100

cassidy0111 wrote: »

tus100, have you sought independent legal advice? I hope this works out for you.

yes but we are going through the initial steps i.e complaint letter to developer, informed our conveyancing solictor who are now investigating. so until i receive their responses i can't make my next move.