brand new flat not so brand new

puddy

BargainMad wrote: »

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

and at the risk of repeating myself, i said that the issue about the mortgage may not be true. i dont make any comment on that as i dont have experience in that area

the point is, that if the developer rented the property out for 3 years, would it still be considered a new build? no

so what difference does it make if its 3 years or 3 months - the property was rented out by the landlord, the tenant used utilities, had a council tax account (or should have) therefore by definition it is not a brand new, unoccupied property which is what the OP thought she had

sonastin

puddy wrote: »

the point is, that if the developer rented the property out for 3 years, would it still be considered a new build? no

so what difference does it make if its 3 years or 3 months - the property was rented out by the landlord, the tenant used utilities, had a council tax account (or should have) therefore by definition it is not a brand new, unoccupied property which is what the OP thought she had

Exactly the point I was going to make. I think the crux of this question is how long they were staying there and on what basis. Has the OP bought from a builder who temporarily permitted someone to stay there, or from a landlord who no longer wishes to let the property. The Property Developer can be both professional builder and professional landlord and I would guess the new build status is lost when it moves from one side of the business to the other.

tus100

sonastin wrote: »

The Property Developer can be both professional builder and professional landlord and I would guess the new build status is lost when it moves from one side of the business to the other.

I bought the flat from the developers and it was them that permitted someone to stay there. For how long, i wish I knew but certainly wasn't for 4 days.

hazyjo

The fact they advertised it for rental probably means it wasn't someone's mate staying there for a while. Sounds like someone actively sought a tenant for it.

Jx

tus100

hazyjo wrote: »

The fact they advertised it for rental probably means it wasn't someone's mate staying there for a while. Sounds like someone actively sought a tenant for it.

Jx

exactly my point. the ea said someone stayed there for 4 days while they had something done in their flat...all very vague. they were not aware that i know abou the property being advertised for rent and I am not going to tell them till i see what they come up with. Also got an email confirmation from the other ea who said he couldn't confirm whether someone had stayed there but had referrred my query to the landlord.......

WelshNic

I'd be absolutely livid. People buy new build for a reason.

Definitely don't let on that you know it was advertised for rent - and get a new solicitor!

BargainMad_3

New Build mortgages are a very touchy subject for mortgage lenders - some have pulled out of the market altogether whilst those that remain are cautious to the extreme. And New Build can literally mean something built in 2008 as well as 2011.

This caution which would apply 100% to the OP's property which is recently built but which has had a tenant in the very recent past.

The OP is right in asserting that their property is not the brand new (not lived in) property they were led to believe it was. They have a strong case for feeling aggrieved. But even if this had been disclosed to the mortgage underwriters, I do not think they would have been able to get a better mortgage because of it.

So for those who think that lenders somehow drop their caution to new builds because there has been a tenant, think again. A "New Build" does not automatically lose its definition because someone has lived in it for x amount of time.

Indeed a new build can be bought and sold (i.e. have real owners on the land registry) but the ultra cautious mortgage underwriters can still classify it as a new build, still curtail the mortgage offers, still restrict things.

So trying to define when is a "new build" not a "new build" to mortgage underwriters is a very different thing to defining what is "new" or not to the person living there.

I hope the OP is reassured that their mortgage offers would not have been better by virtue of their new build once having a tenant. Of course it does not make them feel any better that their new home is tainted by being lived in beforehand.

tus100

the definition of new build varies from lender to lender for example ours defines a new build that was registered two or less years ago. which i am sure that it was in that time frame. whether or not more mortgage options may have been available that might be the case but our broker does need to double confirm there. regardless there is a case of deliberate misrepresentation and moreover i think i have enough evidence to prove that was the the case. voice recorders don't lie.

ILW

tus100 wrote: »

the definition of new build varies from lender to lender for example ours defines a new build that was registered two or less years ago. which i am sure that it was in that time frame. whether or not more mortgage options may have been available that might be the case but our broker does need to double confirm there. regardless there is a case of deliberate misrepresentation and moreover i think i have enough evidence to prove that was the the case. voice recorders don't lie.

What are you hoping to achieve.

Errata

tus100 wrote: »

the definition of new build varies from lender to lender for example ours defines a new build that was registered two or less years ago. which i am sure that it was in that time frame. whether or not more mortgage options may have been available that might be the case but our broker does need to double confirm there. regardless there is a case of deliberate misrepresentation and moreover i think i have enough evidence to prove that was the the case. voice recorders don't lie.

They don't, but if you have recorded telephone conversations without the other person's permission they may be viewed as having been illegally obtained.