Buyer strung us along for 3 months then pulled out!

Jeffrey_Shaw

puddy wrote: »

but who pays for the survey?

Assuming that you're in England/Wales, a survey is the purchaser's responsibility. BUT did you actually mean a valuation for 1993 Act purposes? If so, that Act makes you the purchaser (leaseholder) liable for the valuation fee of the vendor (reversioner)- NB: not 'negotiating fees', just one valuation only.

puddy

so what if there are other buyers also interested at that stage, does more than one survey get carried out?

casper_g

casper_g wrote: »

The buyer. The survey is done after declaring that you are interested in the property, but before you make an offer. See this guide.

My reply above assumed you were asking about buying in Scotland. Note that since 2008 there is a further complication: the vendor of the house has to provide (And pay for) a Home Report which includes a basic survey. I'd imagine the level of detail would be similar-ish to a Homebuyer's Report in England & Wales. A buyer might want a more detailed survey, or might not want to rely on the vendor's report e.g. because it might be out of date by the time they come to buy.

The buyer would need to get their additional survey done before making an offer, as I said before.

puddy

yes i was asking about scotland because theres often comments that the system is better

but to me it sort of feels a bit blind, all this sealed bids business, you dont know where you stand etc

thegirlintheattic

As far as I understand it, before exchange either party can pull out and no compensation needs to be paid. From what you said you maybe better getting the repairs and lease sorted then marketing again.

sonastin

casper_g wrote: »

The buyer. The survey is done after declaring that you are interested in the property, but before you make an offer. See this guide.

So in Scotland: you note your interest, carry out surveys etc, make a binding offer, if things don't proceed to completion after its accepted then there are penalties.

In England: you make a non-binding offer, carry out surveys etc, exchange contracts, if things don't proceed to completion then there are penalties.

Other than getting a bit of survey info upfront (HIP anyone? OK search data not survey data but still...) I don't see why Scotland is better. Its only the point at which you talk numbers that differs.

DVardysShadow

sonastin wrote: »

... Other than getting a bit of survey info upfront (HIP anyone? OK search data not survey data but still...) I don't see why Scotland is better. Its only the point at which you talk numbers that differs.

Yes, basically you are right. Part of the prelude to the HIP included the argument that there was no legal reason why the Scots process could not be implemented down South, without legislation. The HIP gave legislative support to a 'radical' change in process - but effectively it was botched in that it took on the EPC and all kinds of other mission creep - but without the HIP providers being particularly liable to anyone. The HIP was a good thing, but unfortunately the benefits were drowned out by the mission creep.

I think that the advantage of the Scots system is that the offer is only made in binding form [although I suspect that there are nods winks and funny handshakes to arrive at the binding offer]. As there is only a binding offer, this leaves a lot less scope for disappointment.

May be if in England, we had the offer called 'non-binding offer' and had a 'binding offer' and 'binding acceptance' stage immediately prior to exchange of contract, there would be less ill-feeling.

puddy

i wouldnt want to carry out a survey if it wasnt clear that my offer would be accepted

olly300

puddy wrote: »

i wouldnt want to carry out a survey if it wasnt clear that my offer would be accepted

That's the risk of the Scottish system but it has it's plus points - an offer is binding.

In England either of you can pull out any time up until exchange of contracts allowing gazumping and gazundering.

scarletwoman

Ok, yes Blacksheep I am in London. So the main point of contention seems to be the lease and I have to say that anywhere I turn, people seem confused when I mention a lease in this case. I understand that when you purchase a flat in a block of flats, there is a lease, as there would be many different people sharing the costs etc. In the case of 2 flats, upstairs and downstairs, it seems less clear. When I bought the flat 10 years ago, as a share of freehold, I was told by agent, solicitor etc, that I was basically jointly responsible with the upstairs neighbour. Each of us are responsible for our own flat but we are jointly responsible for the roof, the front garden (the rear garden is ours only) and the hallway. Period. There is no ground rent, or any other thing usually associated with a lease. When I mentioned to my solicitor that the prospective buyer wanted us to extend the lease etc, she actually told me that it was ridiculous on his part to mention a lease for a flat sold as 'share of freehold' and she advised us against doing it as it would take a long time and we would probably lose the property we wanted to buy. It is now a moot point since we have now lost the property anyway. Now I am not an expert, which is why I asked the solicitor, the agent etc for advice. I know now that the lease is an all-important part of it, for some obscure reason. If I had known that, I would have extended it before! Lol, well next time better. The roof repairs were minor and our share was paid on completion together with the other guy's. Hopefully we'll find another buyer before next year, as well as another property to move into. Still thinking of going thru another agent though as I really feel like they misled both us and the buyer. Thanks all for your replies.