The government should change the law regarding buying/selling

grifferz

Propertyfan wrote: »

Fart has me on ignore so I can post this (hee hee):

You're the only one laughing. This isn't amusing, it's just childish. It would really be best not to post stuff like this at all, but if you must then please do it as a private message as no one else is interested in your feud with another poster.

Propertyfan wrote: »

Does Fart have one of those thick Scottish accents?

And there's absolutely no excuse for comments like that either. Are you a grown man trying to sell his house or are you in a playground thinking it is still acceptable to make fun of people for where they come from and (what you imagine) they sound like?

Ulfar

Sorry but requiring a deposit from a buyer is idiotic when most times the problems are caused by the vendor being less than honest or not really wanting to sell their property for the agreed price.

Gazumping happens because of the Vendor, Gazundering happens because of the buyer. Are either one fair no they aren't.

But any system has to protect both the buyer and the seller.

I will declare my vested interest in that I was buying a property that was on the edge of a local ongoing re-development. I was informed by the seller that the house was not part of the redevelopment, it was only when the searches were done that it came to light it was to be compulsory purchased and knocked down and the vendor had been formally notified.

I lost out on searches, survey fees and mortgage arrangement fees. I didn't pay any solicitor fees as I retained them for the work on the house I eventually did buy.

Want to improve the English and Welsh system, require the vendor to have the survey/valuation,searches done and make the survey binding on the surveyor such that if the buyer finds any problems within 5 years they are liable.

This would enable quicker purchase times and have the added bonus of making surveyors much more diligent. The buyers wouldn't lose out any money as they would know all the facts up front, which would enable a faster turn around.

fart

grifferz wrote: »

And there's absolutely no excuse for comments like that either. Are you a grown man trying to sell his house or are you in a playground thinking it is still acceptable to make fun of people for where they come from and (what you imagine) they sound like?

It's also pretty funny considering i'm English and didn't move to Scotland until i was 25.

Fraise

Propertyfan wrote: »

The terms of the deposit can be negotiable when the new conveyancing law is worded. It has to be a law - not some agreement made by a group of dodgy estate agents and solicitors. It's a proper law.

The law could include conditions in which a deposit must be returned. For example:

If the seller can prove beyond reasonable doubt a survey shows the property is uninhabitable.

If both parties dispute this claim there could be some tribunal set up to mediate such 'disputes'.

There would be very few grounds to dispute the return of the deposit. Reasons like:

"I changed my mind."

"I saw a cheaper property."

"The survey was fine but I now realize more work has to be done to the property and I don't want to spend extra cash."

"I will have my mortgage ready in three months so return the deposit until then."

"I was high on drugs when I said yes to the offer."

"My bank burnt down along with all my accounts."

Reasons like that will not be grounds to return a deposit.

I would say

1) If the survey/searches reveal the property is uninhabitable or vastly overpriced based on its condition,

2) Loss of a family member/or serious injury to a family member during the conveyancing process,

are the only reasons why the deposit should be returned. Any other reason is not acceptable.

I can foresee huge headaches for would-be buyers trying to get their deposits back, if as you suggest

If they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that's a headache and time-consuming. Possibly costly too, if it goes to court.

Another point you've overlooked is that many buyers only get their funds released when they've sold their own property or the mortgage company has given them the funds through the solicitor - and that only happens on exchange. Some people wouldn't be able to put a £1k deposit down until after the transactions are complete....


If the seller can prove beyond reasonable doubt a survey shows the property is uninhabitable.

Propertyfan

I am selling my house to Fart. He's made me an offer of 300,000 farts. Seems reasonable!

Battleaxe44

Fart, my point is, there are better systems than what is acceptable at the moment in England and Wales. A seposit soon sorts out the the time wasters and if you read my post, The seller has the surveys done before the house goes on the market. Surveys are done buy a registered surveyor who has appended a Declaration to the report so a Buyer has that assurance that it is a bona fide survey then if the biuyer wishes to have an independent survey done, it is done at the buyers expense..

Oh in the pack it has to show the utility bills are up to date as well as Property Tax has been paid for the current year.

From what I have been reading no one wants to pay a non-refundable deposit. it used all be done on a handshake, but these days a handshale seems not to be honoured. Just my observation and of course it could be wrong...

As for buyers EA's and solicitors colluding, that in itself is deplorable.

I suppose because we have to show all our finances are in place for the purchase before we even place an offer on a property, I find the English system strange and so time consuming.

grifferz

I've got a feeling this thread is going to make even less sense once the forum admin team's banhammer has finished with it.

Battleaxe44

grifferz wrote: »

I've got a feeling this thread is going to make even less sense once the forum admin team's banhammer has finished with it.

Why? An idea has been mooted, everyone has commented on the idea and given their reasons why they agree or disgaree yes there has been a bit name calling, but not over the top. I've been called far worse on this Forum, I admit I did not like it, but I try to rise above it.

Why would people be banned?

I might have missed something here

grifferz

Battleaxe44 wrote: »

Why? An idea has been mooted, everyone has commented on the idea and given their reasons why they agree or disgaree yes there has been a bit name calling, but not over the top. I've been called far worse on this Forum, I admit I did not like it, but I try to rise above it.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a bunch of posts removed or edited.

Leaving 5 not very coherent pages of failure to explain why those unhappy with the process in England/Wales wouldn't be in favour of adopting the Scottish one.

fart

Battleaxe44 wrote: »

Fart, my point is, there are better systems than what is acceptable at the moment in England and Wales.

Yeh, the one in Scotland.