Solicitor enquiries just before exchange - can anyone advise?

Windsorcastle

Having waited since Monday to exchange on my sale, it was finally confirmed we would exchange yesterday.However at 4pm the buyer's solicitor told the buyer he had only just managed to read the responses to enquiries, which we sent back 3 weeks ago!!


He has now picked up on the following and refusing to exchange:


1. That I had subsidence repairs under an insurance claim last year. He is insisting I need building regs approval. But there was no underpinning or structural work, just crack filling and no building regs approval was needed. I do have a certificate of structural adequacy plus a guarantee from the insurer that they will reopen the claim if the same problem recurs within 6 years.


2. That I had a new flat roof installed. Again asking for building regs approval but again I don't think that is needed for a new covering on a flat roof


3. That when the conversion was done to create my house and several flats 25 years ago, a kitchen extension was added. Asking for building regs approval, but this was not an issue the last 4 times the property has been bought and sole. Surely it was covered by the planning permission for the conversion.


4. That the buyer can't get buildings insurance, and if they continue with my insurer they may get big price hikes every year - I have offered to adjust the price accordingly once they obtain a quote.


Does anyone know how best to address these issues? My own solicitor didn't sound too sure what to do last night.


I am beside myself with worry al weekend now in case the buyer pulls out as they have been given the impression their solicitor 'uncovered' these things whereas I gave truthful and frank answers to all enquiries but he didn't look at these till yesterday!!


Any advice very gratefully received.

phill99

You need to tell your solicitor to remind the vendors solicitor of these issues and that he clearly needs retraining concerning what is and what isn't coveted under building regulations.

Your solicitor should be advising this anyway.

On terms of your point 3, building regs aren't covered under planning permission. The 2 are completely different sets of regs. One covers whether it can be built (PP) and the other, how it s built (BR).

ash28

Did you just have the flat roof recovered? If so tell them, we had a similar issue (it came from the buyers survey (surveyor assumed wrongly it was new roof) and we were asked about it in the queries just before exchange), I explained that the roof had not been replaced just recovered...and that the existing roof structure was sound.

We had an extension that had been up for years too, it was asked about on the queries form, I just said that we had no issue when we bought the house in 1993 and neither had the previous owners.

The other issues I wouldn't have a clue about to be honest....have you explained that building regs weren't needed for the subsidence work carried out?

The questions were asked were questions we had already been asked and it did come as a surprise to find them asked again at the very end.

caeler

I had somebody suggest they couldn't get home insurance on my last property and suggested I was lying when I told them I had insurance. I think it was their excuse to pull out. It is a shame that it took your buyers solicitors so long to put forward the queries. I hope they get resolved.

somethingcorporate

We had a similar last minute panic on our sale when the buyers got twitchy about lack of regs for a loft conversion (done 15+ years ago and we had no paperwork) and for the removal of a wall between two rooms.

We had to pay for an indemnity policy that covered this, I think it was about £200 but sorted us out - I have heard they are not worth the paper they are written on but at least it got our sale through.

Windsorcastle

phill99 wrote: »

You need to tell your solicitor to remind the vendors solicitor of these issues and that he clearly needs retraining concerning what is and what isn't coveted under building regulations.

Your solicitor should be advising this anyway.

On terms of your point 3, building regs aren't covered under planning permission. The 2 are completely different sets of regs. One covers whether it can be built (PP) and the other, how it s built (BR).

Thanks Phill. I haven't got much faith in my own solicitor unfortunately but as I've struggled through this far I feel I need to persevere.
I think the buyer's solicitor has come up with these problems to cover up the fact that he didn't even look at our responses to enquiries for 3 weeks! He doesn't even respond to messages from the buyer who is his client!
He has also now got the buyer in a tizzy and has told them they need to contact their mortgage provider to see if they will still lend to them. This is despite their survey flagging up no issues and stating that the house has no sign of structural problems. Is it the buyer's job to even do this or shouldn't the solicitor be having that conversation with the lender?

Windsorcastle

ash28 wrote: »

Did you just have the flat roof recovered? If so tell them, we had a similar issue (it came from the buyers survey (surveyor assumed wrongly it was new roof) and we were asked about it in the queries just before exchange), I explained that the roof had not been replaced just recovered...and that the existing roof structure was sound.

We had an extension that had been up for years too, it was asked about on the queries form, I just said that we had no issue when we bought the house in 1993 and neither had the previous owners.

The other issues I wouldn't have a clue about to be honest....have you explained that building regs weren't needed for the subsidence work carried out?

The questions were asked were questions we had already been asked and it did come as a surprise to find them asked again at the very end.

Thank you Ash. Your situation sounds very similar. Yes, all these points were things I answered in my original answers to enquiries so I was really upset when he only came back with them yesterday, having had 3 weeks to look at my answers AND having promised the buyer we would exchange by the end of last week. He has lied through his teeth twice before to the buyer about things he said he'd done which we later found out he hadn't.


Yes, it was just a roof recovering we had, not a new roof structure. I will reiterate this on Monday. I have already supplied a 10 year guarantee for the new roof covering with 5 years left on it.


I explained to my solicitor last night that the subsidence work was very minor and non structural. It was clear from her surprise that she had never read my responses to enquiries either, as this was already very clearly explained. Thank you for your post though, it makes me feel better that you obviously got your situation resolved. I'm terrified that the sale will be scope red by rubbish solicitors who don't know what they are doing...

Windsorcastle

caeler wrote: »

I had somebody suggest they couldn't get home insurance on my last property and suggested I was lying when I told them I had insurance. I think it was their excuse to pull out. It is a shame that it took your buyers solicitors so long to put forward the queries. I hope they get resolved.

Thanks Caeler. I have already spoken to my insurer and they have indicated they will continue to offer cover depending on the new owner meeting heir criteria. I also found an insurer called Home Protect who I contacted myself to get a quote about 6 months ago and they gave me a quote that was very similar to my current policy.
The frustrating thing is my buyer seems keen to resolve these issues and priced, he hasn't suggested pulling out as yet, but I really feel his solicitor is making matters much worse.

Windsorcastle

somethingcorporate wrote: »

We had a similar last minute panic on our sale when the buyers got twitchy about lack of regs for a loft conversion (done 15+ years ago and we had no paperwork) and for the removal of a wall between two rooms.

We had to pay for an indemnity policy that covered this, I think it was about £200 but sorted us out - I have heard they are not worth the paper they are written on but at least it got our sale through.

Thank you Something. I thought he might be after an indemnity policy on the kitchen extension, but as it was built 25 years ago when the conversion was done, I am quite sure it doesn't require any paperwork.


More confusingly, he has complained that there is no guarantee for the subsidence work and has asked me to get quotes for a guarantee! I don't even understand what he is asking for there! I have provided a certificate of structural adequacy, which is what is normally produced in these situations. I have no idea what sort of 'guarantee' he is after.


I suspect these questions are a smokescreen to distract everyone from the fact that he hasn't lifted a finger on this sale for 3 weeks and now he has sent the buyer into a panic to direct attention from himself!


It's so horrible having to spend the weekend feeling so worried and nothing I can do till Monday.

Thrugelmir

Windsorcastle wrote: »

but I really feel his solicitor is making matters much worse.

Your buyer may well be stalling for time. Everybody in the chain has their own agenda.

Windsorcastle

phill99 wrote: »

You need to tell your solicitor to remind the vendors solicitor of these issues and that he clearly needs retraining concerning what is and what isn't coveted under building regulations.

Your solicitor should be advising this anyway.

On terms of your point 3, building regs aren't covered under planning permission. The 2 are completely different sets of regs. One covers whether it can be built (PP) and the other, how it s built (BR).

Phill, do you know if there should be building regs paperwork then, in this case where the extension was built at the time of conversion? It definitely wasn't even discussed in passing when I bought the place so I don't know why it's suddenly an issue after all these years.