The Great 'what you wish you'd known before selling your house' Hunt

John_Pierpoint

The real test of a firm of lawyers is how effective they are when a situation outside of their standard computer model/training of their clerks occurs.

Back in the last century, before Land Transactions had been automated, I was selling a house in a situation where I was legally required to accept the highest ("realistic") offer. Market conditions were just getting the the situation where houses were easy to sell.

The house was at the top of the chain, and then the chain collapsed through illness at the bottom.
Fearing the worst, I emailed all the previous viewers of the property to find out how they were getting on.
I ended up with a near cash buyer (his house "sold" in theory and so only a potential 2 house chain - ideal buyer) but then he tried to get clever and paid nearly £1,000 in survey fees in an attempt to take £10,000++ off my price.
[Perhaps the expensive surveyor was trying to justify his fees by comparing a 100 year old house to a new one? (of half the size and a whole mile further from the "village" centre and the railway station;))].

So I explained the situation to my stalled buyer and we exchanged contracts on a smaller deposit, with an exclusion clause for any further consequential damages should the buyer fail to complete within 3 months - in the event they managed to complete within 10 weeks.

However flaffing about with the contract cost something like an extra £500 on my side - probably money well spent.

Could a firm with a "supermarket" approach handle such a situation effectively? Or do you need a "boutique" - other customers of "one ill patient" might like to comment.

I think the "corner shop" general stores is being consigned to history.

John_Pierpoint

Allison_Haskins wrote: »

Is there an energy offset "contribution" needed on extensions?

I know councils have been applying the Section 106 rules they use for supermarkets on house holders

It's a scam that Councils will 'allow' a supermarket if Tesco etc. funds the new bus station. Now the same "chipping-in" to Council coffers is expected of house holders if they want an extension.

A section 106 agreement is for planning permission, as I understand it the intention is to change "Part L" of the building regulations - which we all need to get if we are erecting more than a posh shed..

Here is the dream:
http://www.bsria.co.uk/news/partl-2013/
(I just did a quick google - I know nothing about the web site owner)

Note the conclusion - I will rewrite it for you as "unless the home you are selling/buying is very special or or the owner is very rich, it is probable that it will have been demolished (and rebuilt at the owners expense) in 40 years time."

That might happen in China but won't happen here.

But think about it before you buy a "dinosaur" building.

Here is an example of someone forced to "renovate" their home and their insurance company refusing to pay the legally enforced extra costs:

Our house is 20 yrs old and the work being quoted for includes new plasterboard on the walls downstairs and up to the landing. The old system where the plasterboard was fitted straight to the walls now requires insulation to be installed between all outer walls and the plasterboard as per the building regulations.

The two builders who called out failed to include the insulation on their quotes and were going to use to old method of installation. They also failed to include a price to move our boiler as the Chief Fire Officer informed me that gas boilers are no longer placed near major electrical items and we need ours moved. As I said, their sole objective is to keep the costs as low as possible for the insurance company and stay on their 'recommended builder' list.


Already "solar panels" are the "deal maker" home improvement, in the same way double glazing was in the 1970's.