Sale on hold after halifax withdrew in scotland after missives!!

coreservers

We've been selling our house near edinburgh for nearly a year. finally a month ago we got a buyer, less than we wanted, but a tidy sum.
yesterday my solicitor mailled to say the missives were complete and a binding contract now exists (so I have that in writing).

Today he phoned up and said Halifax had withdrawn the buyers mortgage due to undisclosed credit issue. I queried the "binding contract and got the following......



I sorry for the confusion. This was my fault. I received a missive letter for the other lawyer which didn’t conclude missives but allowed me to go back and conclude de plano. I should have said in my email a binding contract will “shortly exist” – I hadn’t even considered for one moment the other side would come back withdrawing the formal letter they had sent before I could conclude missives.

I wanted to make sure there hadn’t been a mix up before I called you and was told that the buyers mortgage offer had been recalled however this was being investigated by buyers adviser.

As the buyers mortgage adviser was looking into matters I had hoped the matter was simply a mix up however I was told today that there was no mix up and that the lender was sticking to their decision.

Meanwhile we are out of pocket, and still have a millstone round our neck. Banks...... we bail them out, and they still stick it to us!
So I have any recourse to sue the solicitor, as he's clearly admitted blame!

MFSaver

You will struggle to get compensation from the solicitor, unless you can show that you have suffered damages due to his error in assuming that the formal offer will not be withdrawn. Your sale was stopped by the other side's lender withdrawing their mortgage offer, and not through the actions of your solicitor.

I do expect that a good solicitor will waive at least part, if not all, of his fees (depending on what you paid him to do).

beecher2

The solicitor hasn't accepted the blame for your sale falling apart, he's only accepted blame for telling you missives were complete when they weren't. On what grounds would you sue him/her? I'd be more inclined to be angry with the buyer who hadn't disclosed the credit problems, but that's water under the bridge now. All you can do is put it up for sale again.

rising_from_the_ashes

There was a mix up with the completion dates on my purchase of a house ... both sets of solicitors had been working to a certain date - which had been agreed by everyone - but hadn't put it in writing. The person's ex disputed the date and put it back to the original date (a month earlier) and said it had to be done then or not at all.

I ended up out of pocket too (rent on current property, extra mortgage on new one) and my solicitors said it'd never happened before in all the years he'd been practicing .... everyone knew the date but there was nothing in writing so I had no recourse.

coreservers

I thought banks did all creit checks prior to even the offer in principle. or is this another hangover of their greed during the sub prime scandal?

rising_from_the_ashes

The offer in principle is along the lines (I'm not an expert) of whether your salary is enough for the amount borrowed, LTV rate is OK to meet the lenders requirements, you've said you don't have credit problems etc.

Detailed checking (ie proof that the income you've said you earn, proper credit check etc) don't happen until the application is properly processed which is why it can be withdrawn if things come to light.

beecher2

coreservers wrote: »

I thought banks did all creit checks prior to even the offer in principle. or is this another hangover of their greed during the sub prime scandal?

A credit issue may well have come up between the offer in principle and the full application. I know it is fashionable to rant at the banks which 'we saved' but maybe the fault lies squarely with the buyers.

Perhaps a way forward is to wait and see if the buyers can get a new mortgage, or can up their deposit?

DVardysShadow

beecher2 wrote: »

The solicitor hasn't accepted the blame for your sale falling apart, he's only accepted blame for telling you missives were complete when they weren't. On what grounds would you sue him/her? I'd be more inclined to be angry with the buyer who hadn't disclosed the credit problems, but that's water under the bridge now. All you can do is put it up for sale again.

The big question is whether this really is deniability or it is just plausible deniability. I get the impression that it is in the interests of the pair of solicitors to stonewall on this.