Seller failing to complete on sale of flat - Help!

mi5tery

kmmr wrote: »

Mr and Mrs Mi5tery - you will get some posts you don't like on this thread, and you can't get too emotionally caught up with them. It's the nature of posting on a public forum!

So don't let it ruin your day, or even your morning. You need a thick skin and you will get plenty of good advice if you can cope with the odd thing that annoys you.

On another note, I realize you are new, but it is considered good form the click 'thanks' to any post that you find useful, or just to say you have read and listened to them. It down the bottom of each post.

Thank you for your wise words. I'm always a little grumpy in the morning so this probably didn't help with things!

To everyone who has posted on this thread, thank you so much for all your advice and also for your kind words of support. Please accept my sincere apologies if we have failed to acknowledge your support and advice. We have read every post on this thread and appreciate your response greatly.

I know the internet contains lots of people who are not who they claim to be, but please can I ask you to take what we say at face value and without any ulterior motive. We would like to move into our flat and also want the existing tenants to be treated with the respect they deserve. I've asked the EA to see if he can contact the lead tenant and confirm that he has agreed to move out for an agreeable fee (as I was last informed was the case) and that he is not being bullied into it. I await a response.

Mylo_The_Moggy

Gosh, if this was a made-up story, the OP would have one hell of an imagination to invent all that!
Some ppl just like to throw fire to the flame & cause misery for those who just come here for help & advice. This place occasionally throws up the odd 1 or 2......

mi5tery I have no advice unfortunately, but just want to wish you the best of luck & hope you manage to get this nightmare sorted ASAP.
Buying a house is very stressful, it took us 6 months to finally complete on our house (FTBs) due to seller fart-arsing about.

Stressful times, but I'm sure things will turn out good for you in the end. It's just getting there that's the problem!

zappahey

Mylo_The_Moggy wrote: »

Some ppl just like to throw fire to the flame & cause misery for those who just come here for help & advice. This place occasionally throws up the odd 1 or 2......

Often known as trolls...;)

I_have_spoken

I'd never feel happy in property that caused so much angst. Bad karma and all.

ValHaller

mrs_mi5tery wrote: »

Sure. It is:

This register contains any charges and other matters that affect the land.
1 {07.06.2004} REGISTERED CHARGE dated 1 June 2004
2 {18.09.2007} Proprietor: [insert bank name and address here]
3 {30.03.2012} REGISTERED CHARGE dated 2 January 2012 affecting also other titles
NOTE: Charge reference [insert reference here]
4 {30.03.2012} Proprietor: [insert wife name and address here]
5 {30.03.2012} The proprietor of the charge dated 2 January 2012 referred to above is under an obligation to take further advances. These advances will have priority to the extent afforded by section 49(3) Land Registration Act 2002

We've googled the individual and have a theory that the vendor and his wife divorced last year, hence her inclusion as a charge with higher priority than the bank.

observations_from_a_hill wrote: »

Because of lots of little discrepancies, followed by a blinding boo-boo. I gave them a chance to clarify in case they'd made some mistake. No, that's what it says, they say - except you only see that sort of notation when the lender (or Mrs. Seller) is a commercial bank making a commercial loan.

I know the Land Registry isn't always perfect, but I doubt they would attach that notation to an individual, even if named Mrs. HonkersandShankers. So I have to conclude that this notation does not exist on any actual register of title.

OP obviously works in a legal environment and has picked up this notation. Never try to drip-feed an "interesting" fact when you don't understand it.

Other discrepancies - the school. Neither has (I think) mentioned a child.

I don't think there is a booboo here and it may be time to consider getting your troll detector recalibrated.

It seems to me that OP's vendor's ex or soon to be ex is due a settlement from the sale of the property. The settlement has been secured by means of a charge and either legitimately or by sharp practice, the warning has been placed to allow the ex or STBx to place other claims on the property and prevent the seller preempting those claims by extracting value as secured loans.

rrtt

observations_from_a_hill wrote: »

Other discrepancies - the school. Neither has (I think) mentioned a child.

Apart from anything else why on earth shouldn't a couple be planning ahead for a future when they might have a child even if they don't have one already? It's called being sensible, and is something usually encouraged elsewhere on this forum!

People come on here for help and advice at a time when they're particularly stressed and encountering extreme difficulties, seems to me the least the supposed 'helpers' can do is to believe them - you know, along the lines of 'innocent until proven guilty' - and treat them with respect. Considering the value quite rightly put on facts and evidence, it also seems out of order not to ask for clarification of points that strike you as inconsistent before accusing others of being a troll, otherwise you run the risk of being considered a troll yourself ...

rrtt

I_have_spoken wrote: »

I'd never feel happy in property that caused so much angst. Bad karma and all.

It's the seller causing the angst, don't blame the poor old property! I'm sure all the bad karma will cling to the bad seller when he clears off, and Mr and Mrs mi5tery will create a lovely atmos in the property which they'll be happy in :happyhear

xylophone

The first paragraph is incorrect: what deposit does a seller pay? If a buyer pulls out, then the buyer's deposit is forfeit TO the seller.

It means that the seller will subject to seizure as forfeit the deposit put down by the buyer if the buyer fails to complete. http://www.yourdictionary.com/forfeit see transitive verb definition 2

mi5tery

I_have_spoken wrote: »

I'd never feel happy in property that caused so much angst. Bad karma and all.

My wife and I discussed your thoughts over dinner today and came to the conclusion that despite all of this we're still really looking forward to it - just wish we had a solid date when it will happen!

mi5tery

ValHaller wrote: »

I don't think there is a booboo here and it may be time to consider getting your troll detector recalibrated.

It seems to me that [STRIKE]OP's[/STRIKE] seller's ex or soon to be ex is due a settlement from the sale of the property. The settlement has been secured by means of a charge and either legitimately or by sharp practice, the warning has been placed to allow the ex or STBx to place other claims on the property and prevent the seller preempting those claims by extracting value as secured loans.

Is my amendment above correct? Also, I'm sure it's blindingly obvious, but what is "STBx" ?

If I understand you correctly, then you've confirmed our suspicion in regards to there possibly being a divorce. Though as advised by jamesd earlier, the key thing for us is to ensure our solicitor removes the charge once *hopefully* completion takes place.

Thanks