Private sale: Liability to buyer after completion?

Easylife_3

Not so sure that is accurate JQ, the mortgage company haven't been defrauded have they? It's more a case of stamp duty I imagine. Anyway, it has been returned so the price was the price. I just didn't like the attitude of how it was being enforced as I had already agreed to give it back.

JQ.

My interpretation is that your buyer has paid more for the property than the agreed price and that overpayment is now being returned to them via a side agreement. If it was a method for avoiding Stamp Duty you would be retaining the extra £2k not giving it back to them. So I would guess they've told their mortgage co they're paying £2k more for the house than they actually are - that's mortgage fraud.

DVardysShadow

JQ. wrote: »

My interpretation is that your buyer has paid more for the property than the agreed price and that overpayment is now being returned to them via a side agreement. If it was a method for avoiding Stamp Duty you would be retaining the extra £2k not giving it back to them. So I would guess they've told their mortgage co they're paying £2k more for the house than they actually are - that's mortgage fraud.

Accomplice? I think you have made the case for unwitting. But it takes more for a witting accomplice to mortgage fraud.

Easylife_3

No, you have that wrong. The mortgage company told them how much they can have and that is what they paid, so no 2k more for the house at all. All is good with the mortgage company and all is good with them. I wanted to return it I just didn't like the way I was being badgered. That is it really. Edit: I realise where this has come from, other thread I wrote mortgage threshold. That was poorly written by me in hindsight as it had nothing to do with a mortgage, it was about other costs incurred, splitting them equally.

JQ.

Nope, still makes no sense to me.

I think you've been told a load of porkies. If you had agreed to split certain costs this could have been written into the completion statement and all costs settled by your solicitor. The fact that you've entered into some sort of handshake agreement with no formal contract just make me think mortgage fraud - there's no other reason why the buyers would agree to such a thing, as they leave themselves open to you just not paying them the £2k.

Easylife_3

JQ you missed trust out and the fact I may be a numnuts I think I have made a mountain out of nothing here, it was to split any fees that arose to allow the deal to be "agreed" ie a price drop etc. Then a disagreement about "which" fees ensues so it is easier to give back and move on - this is what I have done. I am not savvy enough to make sense of it or the posts on here and it is tiring. Anyway, that's me done (and told) and the moral is; don't sell private as it is too much hassle.

Thanks for advice and time.

Jeffrey_Shaw

Really, there's a simple answer- in the contract for sale. Standard Conditions ed. 5 (2011) clause 7.3 says that
Completion does not cancel liability to perform any outstanding obligation under the contract.

silvercar

JQ. wrote: »

Nope, still makes no sense to me.

I think you've been told a load of porkies. If you had agreed to split certain costs this could have been written into the completion statement and all costs settled by your solicitor. The fact that you've entered into some sort of handshake agreement with no formal contract just make me think mortgage fraud - there's no other reason why the buyers would agree to such a thing, as they leave themselves open to you just not paying them the £2k.

Most obvious reason is to keep them below a stamp duty threshold and save them paying extra & in SDLT. Jump from £250,000 to £250,001 and the extra £1 costs them an extra £5k in stamp duty, £7.5k if they are FTBs.

Jeffrey_Shaw

No. SDLT rate at £249 999 is the same as at £250 000. It rises only above the latter figure.

JQ.

silvercar wrote: »

Most obvious reason is to keep them below a stamp duty threshold and save them paying extra & in SDLT. Jump from £249,999 to £250k and the extra £1 costs them an extra £5k in stamp duty, £7.5k if they are FTBs.

The OP has stated it's not about Stamp Duty. However, even if it were then the under-the-table money transfer would be the other way round, from buyer to vendor. In this case the Vendor is giving the Buyer £2k, ie the the Buyer has paid an extra £2k to the OP and now wants it back. That's not a very good SDLT avoidance scheme in my eyes.