Buyer threatening to pull out.

tim123456789

jimbog wrote: »

If you were to be his tenants you would be 'locked in' for six months with a tenancy agreement

not if he issues a period tenancy at the start

tim

tim123456789

hcb42 wrote: »

don't do it...!

What's the betting he drops his offer right before you exchange.

That's easy

As they are only agreeing to do the deal in order not to lose a sale on "good" terms, once those terms cease to be a "good", the response is "on yer bike matey!"

tim

zzzLazyDaisy

I would say he is bluffing. There are strict laws on 'sale and rent back' arrangements. To start with the company buying the property has to be listed on the financial services register. Also, if he is buying with the aid of a mortgage, lenders will not agree to a buy to let mortgage if the current owners are going to be tenants in the same property after the sale.

GDB2222

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

I would say he is bluffing. There are strict laws on 'sale and rent back' arrangements. To start with the company buying the property has to be listed on the financial services register. Also, if he is buying with the aid of a mortgage, lenders will not agree to a buy to let mortgage if the current owners are going to be tenants in the same property after the sale.

Probably ignorant, rather than bluffing. Unless he was into BMV rentbacks, he wouldn't know about the registration requirement.

The point about mortgages is a new one on me. Why would lenders object?

fishpond

Honeyapple wrote: »

Hello



Now our buyer is an investor and is buying to let. His mortgage offer is only valid for 3 months. He is adamant that he doesn't want to reapply.
Thanks

/

The above is probably true and could potentially cost the investor a lot of money to reapply.
Also, as has already been said, to rent to an existing owner is a bit of a no go area which is fraught with legal problems for him.
IMO he is trying to push you to avoid his extra costs, do not be bullied.

zzzLazyDaisy

GDB2222 wrote: »

The point about mortgages is a new one on me. Why would lenders object?

Why? I don't know the legal ins and outs, you'd have to ask a broker, but I understand it is something to do with legal issues in evicting them if the buyer defaults on the mortgage.

Errata

I think your buyer thinks you are as stupid as they are avaricious.

tim123456789

Errata wrote: »

I think your buyer thinks you are as stupid as they are avaricious.

I don't think that he is

I think that he's ****ed off that he thought that they had a closed chain the day before exchange and now he doesn't.

And he's looking for ways that he can proceed with the deal ASAP.

This is what any buyer would want, isn't it?

tim

Errata

A seller can't sign a contract to rent the house they already own, which leaves the buyer free at completion to set the rent at any level they fancy making it unacheivable for the poor sap that's just sold the house.

antrobus

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

I would say he is bluffing. There are strict laws on 'sale and rent back' arrangements. To start with the company buying the property has to be listed on the financial services register. ...

Interesting point. Yes, 'sale and rent back' is now a regulated activity, but whether that would apply to a private arrangement between two individuals, I do not know. After all, the Consumer Credit Act imposes all sort of rules on businesses that provide credit to consumers, none of which prevents any particular individual from lending money to someone else, and charging interest on it.