The government should change the law regarding buying/selling

fart

Battleaxe44 wrote: »

Is it necessary to start name calling because you don't agree with the proposal.

i thought we were all adults.

Who was name calling? He is an idiot.

id·i·ot [id-ee-uht] Show IPA
noun 1. Informal. an utterly foolish or senseless person.


He is extremely foolish and has actually been very childish with most of his comments. Well within my rights to call him an idiot.

googler

Propertyfan wrote: »

Fart - he of the smelly disposition - clearly fails to grasp the basic concept of 'good faith'. Good faith is a basic tenet of English law. The notion that two (or more) people enter into an agreement with the intention of honouring their obligations. In plain English, they don't try to be dishonest, misleading.

If you apply the concept of 'good faith' to the sale/purchase of a property in ENGLAND AND WALES and not in SCOTLAND, you require the mechanism of a deposit to ensure good faith is maintained

Why?

Buyers enter into property transactions every day in good faith, without deposits, in Scotland. Why do particularly need a deposit-based scenario to enforce this in E&W?

Propertyfan

Here I go again, I have bought property in three countries and each required a deposit (non-refundable) to be paid once you say you agree to buy.

I am sitting here with the agreement for the latest property in Texas, yep further $5000,00 depost to be paid within 14 days. if the deposit is not paid, I forfeit the $1000.00 placed in bond. This is to offeset the sellers expenses.

Thanks for the info, Battleaxe. I'm guessing Fart will disagree with what you've done but what you've mentioned seems a common sense approach to buying/selling properties.

As I mentioned earlier, if you can't afford the deposit, you can't afford the property. If you have a problem with a deposit then you're going to have a problem buying the actual property. The deposit method eliminates time wasters. Someone might love a property but if they regard the deposit as too high they can't go ahead. They won't waste the seller's time. I reckon you'd get rid of a lot of time wasters if England and Wales had mandatory deposits.

googler

Propertyfan wrote: »

I'm surprised you didn't call yourself..

Sole Human Intelligent Thought. You could shorten it to sh*t.

Time to rein it in, chaps.

Let's discuss this as adults, shall we?

Propertyfan

Fart doesn't want to communicate with me any more.

Fair enough. We'll have to agree to disagree.

propertyman

googler wrote: »

.. But surely all the situations you outline are developing largely because buyers and sellers aren't committing to entry dates upfront?

Again re read what I said you're not thinking it through. Let me try a Janet and John example

I find a property to buy, price agreed, how can I commit to a completion date unless I can give you the money by that date??

In turn if I am selling how can I agree to a move out date if I have no where to move to??


Yes the mechanics of the system in E & W suck and could vastly improve so that there need not be a delay between agreemtn and exchange.

But in the majority of cases people need to sell to buy and therefore until all the chain is in place they can't commit

In your world I could end up committing to owning two houses but not having the cash or loan to do so, or having to move out.:rotfl:

fart

googler wrote: »

Time to rein it in, chaps.

Let's discuss this as adults, shall we?

No need -

This message is hidden because Propertyfan is on your ignore list.

propertyman

I pay my £1000 deposit and pull out due to

a problems revealed after survey

or

b commonly asked on MSE you as seller could not be bothered to pull out your lease and give an accurate lease length or service charges due, which later reveal that the lease is only 75 years and SC is in fact not as and when but £2k a year

and you as seller wont agree to a sensible reduction in price.

Why shoud I lose my deposit?

googler

propertyman wrote: »

Again re read what I said you're not thinking it through. Let me try a Janet and John example

I find a property to buy, price agreed, how can I commit to a completion date unless I can give you the money by that date??

In turn if I am selling how can I agree to a move out date if I have no where to move to??

It happens on a daily basis in Scotland. Think it through yourself. Many Scots are dealing with the same mortgage providers as those in E&W. They commit to offers with set entry dates according to their situation with regard to their finances from their lender, and to the situation of the buyer and seller around them. So, simple example;

The FTB buyer offers with whatever entry date is convenient for them and their seller. With finance in place, the date isn't crucial to them.

The seller/buyer who's selling to the FTB now has an agreed offer and entry date on their property. They offer on their onward purchase with an entry date matching that which the FTB has, so that they move out on that day, the FTB moves in, and the seller above them moves out that day so that they move in. At some point you reach someone who's moving to rented, selling due to bereavement, etc where no onward move is involved, and that's where the cycle ends.

My point is, if this can be achieved in one country of the UK, in spite of the two concerns you raise above, without deposits, and when dealing with the same pool of finance providers, why are you so insistent it can't be achieved in E&W without deposits?

Why do you see it as impractical to adopt this for E&W?

Also, I regret I've never heard the term "Janet and John example" - I hope this isn't a veiled insult.

propertyman

googler wrote: »

It happens on a daily basis in Scotland. Why do you see it as impractical to adopt this for E&W?

Also, I regret I've never heard the term "Janet and John example" - I hope this isn't a veiled insult.

At last you have thought it through, in both cases it relies on all parties to be able to buy and sell, which is the point that I made.

Not heard of Janet and John, now I understand your naivety, you must just be barely 18

This sort of debate has raged on since I started in property in the early 80's and no one in E & W looks to want or need to change.:cool: