brand new flat not so brand new

cassidy0111

tus100 wrote: »

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.

Ok tus100, I am hoping that you get the solution you want and deserve. I can totally understand the way you feel.

BargainMad_3

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.

But that is EXACTLY my point.

Lenders do treat buying a new build differently in terms of LTV/Deposits/Valuations.

However - and this is the straw that must be grasped - the flat is still INHERENTLY a new build being sold by a developer despite it having had a temporary stayer.

Someone has said above that the starting point for compensation should be the difference in cost between the mortgage they did get and the mortgage they "could" have got.

Well in that case the compensation would be a big fat ZERO !!!

Honestly, it makes not one jot of difference. Not one jot.

You are seriously deluding yourself that lenders somehow make a more favourable offer of a mortgage (yeah right!) because a temporary tenant has rested their heads in a property for a transient period of time. AS IF !!!!!

It's simply not like that in the cold, hard REAL world of mortgage underwriting.

Encouraging the OP down this route will actually make her case weaker as she will be presenting a case that can easily demolished by any level headed person with any knowledge of how underwriting works. It would not be a rational claim to support.

Instead she should be concentrating on the feeling of being duped by the marketing of this property and the more emotive angle.

If you don't believe me go to a mortgage broker and say that you want to buy a "brand new property" from a developer but because someone has slept in it you want the full mortgage market to be opened up to you. You want lenders to ignore all the protocols of buying a new build because someone has used the cooker. In essence you want a better mortgage deal because someone has flushed the toilet.

Go on, try it........

puddy

i dont know why everyone is saying it has never been owned by anyone, it was clearly owned by the developer and as a landlord they have rented the property out. there must be a previous council tax entry too

appliances dont get dirty after someone living there for 4 days, so it must have been longer than that

the mortgage issue may not be true, but nevertheless you buy a new home specifically because you want it brand new, thats the OPs preference, thats what she paid for.

its definately a trading standards issue i would think, plus estate agency complaint (although im not sure they're regulatated by anyone)

plus the issue with the land registry, i cant understand how the OP can be the first 'owner' if the developer was acting as an owner in renting the property out?

tus100

BargainMad wrote: »

But that is EXACTLY my point.

Lenders do treat buying a new build differently in terms of LTV/Deposits/Valuations.

However - and this is the straw that must be grasped - the flat is still INHERENTLY a new build being sold by a developer despite it having had a temporary stayer.

Go on, try it........

lol BargainMad i think your points are valid and make sense. thanks that is super helpful, it is definitely a trading standards issue though

BargainMad_3

puddy wrote: »

i dont know why everyone is saying it has never been owned by anyone, it was clearly owned by the developer and as a landlord they have rented the property out. there must be a previous council tax entry too

appliances dont get dirty after someone living there for 4 days, so it must have been longer than that

the mortgage issue may not be true, but nevertheless you buy a new home specifically because you want it brand new, thats the OPs preference, thats what she paid for.

its definately a trading standards issue i would think, plus estate agency complaint (although im not sure they're regulatated by anyone)

plus the issue with the land registry, i cant understand how the OP can be the first 'owner' if the developer was acting as an owner in renting the property out?

At the risk of repeating myself the OP is buying from a BUILDER ! It is to all intents and to all purposes a new build property and the mortgage options will be curtailed by that fact and that fact alone.

It does not matter if that builder has temporarily allowed someone to stay in that property on a formal or informal basis or even how long or short that stay was for. Those criteria might affect the price they sell the property for. They would not affect the mortgage options that are available which are simply dictated by the inherent fact that it is a new build property being sold by a builder.

A "new build" could have had all sorts of people going in and out of it but in the cold light of day it is a new build as far as the mortgage underwriting is concerned.

Indeed - and just to highlight this point - if the OP was to sell in the next few months any prospective buyer might still find their mortgage options curtailed by the very fact that is is a "recent" new build !

Mortgage underwriting is a very serious and dour business. Brokers can be all "bouncy and entusiastic" in trying to drum up business and give unrealistic expectations. But when the paperwork is passed to the back office for underwriting all of this goes out of the window and it is cold hard facts time.

But as I have pointed out this in no way detracts from the very valid and heartfelt feelings the OP has over being duped over the property and it is this that she should pursue

tus100

puddy wrote: »

i dont know why everyone is saying it has never been owned by anyone, it was clearly owned by the developer and as a landlord they have rented the property out. there must be a previous council tax entry too


i also forgot to mention that on the day we got our keys, we opened up our mailbox and there was a british gas (a bill) addressed to someone not the developer but naively didn't think much off it and duly 'returned to sender' so hoping we get another one through the post. checked with council tax people who due to the dpa they can't give me any info.

Mikazaru

Is there anyone else in the block yet? Could any of the neighbours tell you if someone had been living there for just a week or if it was longer?

taurusgb

tus100 wrote: »

i also forgot to mention that on the day we got our keys, we opened up our mailbox and there was a british gas (a bill) addressed to someone not the developer but naively didn't think much off it and duly 'returned to sender' so hoping we get another one through the post. checked with council tax people who due to the dpa they can't give me any info.

Read all meters and see how much has been used previously to you movin in

tus100

Mikazaru wrote: »

Is there anyone else in the block yet? Could any of the neighbours tell you if someone had been living there for just a week or if it was longer?

the person opposite us moved in a day before us as did someone on the floor above. haven't seen many people around in the building as it is quite quiet but will look into that.

tus100

taurusgb wrote: »

Read all meters and see how much has been used previously to you movin in

good idea, thanks.