trying to buy a house... again

bobwilson

So, we figured 3rd time lucky. _party_

Having had friends who leasehold flats and have problems with their freeholder landlords trespassing on their balconies etc, we decided to go slightly outside London this time, to get a small detached freehold house. We value our privacy and want to own something that subject to planning, we can do what we like to. At least for the feeling of truly owning it.

We're months on in the purchase, and almost reached exchange / completion.

Our solicitor has said if our lender pulls out between exchange and completion (which they can do for no reason other than they feel like it), we'll be liable to pay the seller £33,000. That's our life savings gone... unless we can find another lender quickly (which we can't predict). We find it unacceptable that we're expected to sign a contract that makes us responsible for the behaviour of a 3rd party we can't control. The contract goes on to say that the solicitor is in no way responsible for the behaviour of their bank, and should their bank make a mistake or delay in transferring any funds, the liability doesn't fall with them. Yet they expect us to be responsible for the actions of our bank.. it seems incredibly unreasonable. Is this normal when buying a house?

At the same time, our seller has suddenly announced that there are covenants on the property: a public electricity line under the garden (going all along the length of the plot), that is owned by South Eastern Electric Company. South Eastern Electric Company have the right to enter the garden, and dig it all up to do repairs or maintenance to the underground electric line, or inspect as they choose. This is a small private garden so it feels like quite a big deal. Even if it never happens, we don't really want this potential over our heads. (forgive the pun):cool:

In addition to this, apparently, before we can make any changes to the house or garden, we have to ask permission from a company called ''Fairbriar Homes Ltd", and they can charge a fee.:rotfl:

Since this house is freehold and was built privately by the previous owner, we can't fathom why Fairbriar homes have a say on anything. According to our solicitor, Fairbriar homes previously owned the estate where this house was built (The plot was sold from 2 neighbours' gardens being split up in the 1980s, and this house was built privately by the seller). We fail to see why that should entitle Fairbriar Homes Ltd. to any say in what goes on with our house. It's a freehold house, not leasehold.:(

These things take away the whole point in owning our own house, for us. Our solicitor is trying to fix it all, but it doesn't look promising.

Our solicitor said they find these covenants to be "acceptable". Well we don't.

We're quite peaved that we've only been told about it at this point.

We are tempted to just buy it and make do because we've reached this stage. But at the same time, it's the biggest purchase of our lives and at over £300k we don't want to end up with something we're not happy with.

Do these things sound normal / common? Would they affect the marketability of the house in the future?

Any advice appreciated! :laugh::think:

harrup

When you say " slightly ouside London" I presume you didn't mean Scotland! I understand that up there your situation - i.e. an accepted offer - is legally binding and if you back out, for whichever reason, you owe the vendor 10% of the agreed price.

But here in England????

I think that solicitor is either a crook or smoking some very funny weed.

Thrugelmir

bobwilson wrote: »

Do these things sound normal / common? Would they affect the marketability of the house in the future?

Any advice appreciated! :laugh::think:

Don't read too deeply into everything such as the lender pulling out. Power lines in the garden etc.

Be guided by your solicitor. That's what you are paying for.

If you want to make the property your home. Then go for it. Unlikely to be any deal breakers.

vuvuzela

harrup wrote: »

When you say " slightly ouside London" I presume you didn't mean Scotland! I understand that up there your situation - i.e. an accepted offer - is legally binding and if you back out, for whichever reason, you owe the vendor 10% of the agreed price.

But here in England????

I think that solicitor is either a crook or smoking some very funny weed.

Careful posting things like this. If you exchange then the 10% deposit (which on a 300K house would be around 30K) can be forfeit in England as well as Scotland if you withdraw from the purchase. Then the vendor could also sue for costs incurred.

harrup

vuvuzela wrote: »

Careful posting things like this. If you exchange then the 10% deposit (which on a 300K house would be around 30K) can be forfeit in England as well as Scotland if you withdraw from the purchase. Then the vendor could also sue for costs incurred.

You are absolutely right - I stand corrected.

For some reason best known to myself I thought the suggested fee applied to the accepted offer ONLY.

Reading correctly - so difficult. Sorry bobwilson, disregard my prior post.

bobwilson

so do these covenants sound normal / common for a freehold? Would they affect the marketability of the house in the future?

We went with the solicitor recommended by the EA but now we're starting to realise its a conflict of interest and we can't trust what they say. they could want to push the sale through even with unreasonable covenants just to get the EA her commission.

Would be too expensive to change solicitor at this point and likely alienate the seller. If no one on here has an opinion, can anyone recommend a decent solicitor for a 2nd opinion?

We've had our fair share of dodgy solicitors and don't personally know anyone to get recommendations....

arbrighton

Covenants are pretty common- our house we've just bought has a few, thanks to being formerly British Waterways. And has a gas main through it. And is by a swing bridge that may need maintenance.
Previous house had some, to do with it formerly being leasehold to a non-existent company. Lease was merged so not sure whether they still applied.

arbrighton

BTW, if you're not certain, the solicitor cannot exchange without your authority. If you really really cannot reconcile yourself with the covenants, walk away now. Yes, it will p**s people off, but as you say, it's a massive amount of money and a long term commitment.

Why do you think lender is going to pull out?

Notmyrealname

bobwilson wrote: »

Yet they expect us to be responsible for the actions of our bank.. it seems incredibly unreasonable. Is this normal when buying a house?

Well lets word it differently and to what it actually is....

They expect you to be responsible for ensuring you can pay for the property you're buying and also that you honour the agreement you've signed. How is that unreasonable?

bobwilson

In which case if you want to word it that way, the solicitor should also be expected to transfer the funds to the seller on time (how is that unreasonable).

But the contrary, the mortgage company has a say. THEY ARE involved. The solicitor is saying if there's a problem with their bank it's not their fault, and WE may have to pay a fine. They also say if there's a problem with OUR bank it's our fault and we may lose £30,000. We agree to buy the house by using a 60% mortgage. We cannot and should not be expected to vouch for the actions of a third party who has explicitly said they can pull out at any time, no more than our solicitor should. It's unreasonable and ridiculous. It should say "you're responsible for your actions, the lender is responsible for theirs", every party is responsible for their own actions for the above reasons.

Oh and please don't copy and paste my words out of context.

bobwilson

Notmyrealname wrote: »

Well lets word it differently and to what it actually is....

They expect you to be responsible for ensuring you can pay for the property you're buying. How is that unreasonable?

Because the MORTGAGE LENDER can pull out at any time. They have a stake in the property. Let me put it this way: It's not possible for ANYONE using a mortgage to ensure the mortgage lender won't pull out before completion. It expects the Buyer to sign a form to say they're in control of something they can't be in control of. It's like expecting the buyer to control the weather. That's why it's unreasonable.

Obviously I can't sign it. I have never made a promise I can't keep and I'm not about to start. They need to change the wording to state that if the lender pulls out, we'll do our best to find another lender, but cannot be held responsible for the actions of the lender.

We've been going 3 months now with no promises at all, so there's no reason why an extra week will make a difference. Alternatively, we can only promise to buy the house if the lender guarantees they won't pull out (which they never do)