Moving into a property before exchange or completion!!!!

00ec25

Hoof_Hearted wrote: »

Why to people just make things up on here?

because there is a fine line between use of irony and demonstration of ignorance

mgtr

To actually move in;

License to Occupy

To redecorate;

Key Undertaking

Obviously these assume the previous occupants have moved out.

I have seen a customer use a license to occupy when the property they were moving into needed a specialist clean due to her sons allergies.

Basically (and I'm in a rush this morn) the document / agreement is normally drawn up from the moment of exchange to expire at completion.

It gives you a right to 'occupy' simple as that.

Key undertaking gets you through the door, and likely operates on the same timeframe however you cannot move in.

Useful if the vendor is twitchy, but property vacant and you want to put new carpets down etc etc

Dan-Dan

Guest101 wrote: »

Dude, stop posting. You really really REALLY need to learn more and post less.

You did tell him once already , well meaning but talks absolutle garbage

Propertyfan

Dude, stop posting. You really really REALLY need to learn more and post less.

Why such a silly, 'uncalled for' reply? The whole point of the process is to agree a price, then go through the conveyancing, EXCHANGE THE CONTRACT, agree COMPLETION DATE - transfer funds, get keys/title deeds, pay solicitors and other stuff (like stamp duty, EA commission).

That's how it's meant to be done. Why are you dismissive of my comment when the first poster's son is clearly breaking the established rules concerning purchasing a new home. It doesn't matter how ignorant you perceive me to be, the fact remains you're supposed to exchange contracts - the solicitors do this (THIS IS WHY YOU'RE PAYING THEM!) before you move into a new property. Silly comments like:


"talks absolutle garbage"

is absurd. Everyone knows you're meant to exchange before moving in or moving out (buying/selling). That's how it's meant to be done - period. If it wasn't meant to be done like that you wouldn't need to hire solicitors to exchange.

I'm amazed and dismayed by some of the people's replies to my original comments on this thread. What ignorant, unkind replies.

Dan-Dan

Mate , i`m not being unkind , but your giving advice here , that isnt correct , same as the other day on the leashold thread , is is good to spend time on here , but you should only contribute to a specific thread if you KNOW what your saying is fact , not OPINION

Propertyfan

Dan-Dan,

What are you talking about?

Are you seriously saying it's standard practice for a buyer to move in to his/her new home - to claim ownership - without solicitors exchanging the signed contracts?

If that is what you are implying/stating - that's laughable.

Please explain your comment. Saying I don't know what I'm talking about when your own comments make no sense is rather lame.

Propertyfan

By the way, Dan-Dan, you've done the classic internet forum troll thing of not replying to the specific point of this thread. All you did is try to insult me. This undermines your point of view. Explain why moving in to a house when you've not exchanged contracts is lawful or acceptable. Please provide a link to any relevant online documentation which proves this sort of practice is legal and acceptable? Seriously, prove your point rather than trying to insult me.

I'd love to read the document/text where it states in absolute terms the buyer doesn't need to exchange via his solicitors and can just move in. Wow - that's something I never knew. So please prove this.

Alter_ego

Propertyfan wrote: »

Why such a silly, 'uncalled for' reply? The whole point of the process is to agree a price, then go through the conveyancing, EXCHANGE THE CONTRACT, agree COMPLETION DATE - transfer funds, get keys/title deeds, pay solicitors and other stuff (like stamp duty, EA commission).

That's how it's meant to be done. Why are you dismissive of my comment when the first poster's son is clearly breaking the established rules concerning purchasing a new home. It doesn't matter how ignorant you perceive me to be, the fact remains you're supposed to exchange contracts - the solicitors do this (THIS IS WHY YOU'RE PAYING THEM!) before you move into a new property. Silly comments like:


"talks absolutle garbage"

is absurd. Everyone knows you're meant to exchange before moving in or moving out (buying/selling). That's how it's meant to be done - period. If it wasn't meant to be done like that you wouldn't need to hire solicitors to exchange.

I'm amazed and dismayed by some of the people's replies to my original comments on this thread. What ignorant, unkind replies.

When you're in a hole-stop digging!

Propertyfan

Alter-ego, what a sad reply. You haven't even addressed the main point of this thread. Find proof via a legal website - a website concerning the sellling/buying of property in England and Wales where it states in absolute terms - so there is no room for doubt - that a buyer can move into his/her new property without having to exchange contracts first. Please provide the proof and I will be happy to say "I was wrong to suggest to the contrary."

Please provide some evidence that I am wrong rather than coming out with cheap comments like "When you're in a hole-stop digging!"

I thought this site was to help people. Seems some of you lot just use it to insult other users.

Dan-Dan

Oh dear oh dear oh dear

step back from the PC Propertyfan !

I am , see you later :-)