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

jimbog

Propertyfan wrote: »

Exchange means all sides are contractually bound to honour the sale or buy so if your son is living inside a house as the new owner and no exchange has taken place it makes a mockery of the transaction process. Hey, lets all buy properties and just move in before completion! Better still, let's just move in without even making an offer to buy the property!

I would guess what you son is doing is illegal under whatever laws govern the sale and purchase of houses in England. I would guess if your son's solicitor found out (assuming he/she hasn't) he/she would be within their right to cease representation and report your son's conduct to the 'haven't paid but got my new house' board of !!!!!! solicitors and estate agents.

In so many ways this is a such a cringeworthy post

Propertyfan

Oh screw you lot. If this is the level of debate on this site, I'm outta here. Life is too short to communicate with people like Dan-Dan, Jimbog etc.

I've no idea if you can deactivate an account on this site but as of this moment I consider mine deactivated.

SternMusik

Propertyfan wrote: »

that a buyer can move into his/her new property without having to exchange contracts first.

I've heard it happen that a tenant bought the house they were living in from their landlord. Imagine that! They were living in the house before exchange, between exchange and completion, and after completion. Shocking...

I echo the comments re hole and digging. This forum is a wonderful resource for learning about property, but you have to want to learn.

Guest101

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.

Its not uncalled for.

You are giving incorrect information.

You are wrong.

You are telling people as if you are right.

You're well intentioned, but do not know the law.

A tenant can buy the property they live in, this is exactly the same.

Carefully consider next tim you post ' Do i know this for a fact? ' then decide whether to click sumbit reply.

penguingirl

Aside from the bickering on this thread, the only worry I would have as your son is if I planned to start decoration work prior to exchange/completion- it would be daft to do this as if the vendor decides to put up the price they have more leverage.

Richard_Webster

Obviously a seller can allow anyone to occupy their property while they own it,including a prospective buyer. Nothing illegal in that.

Whether it is wise or would be advised as the best course by the seller's solicitor is another matter entirely.

witchy1066

Richard_Webster wrote: »

Obviously a seller can allow anyone to occupy their property while they own it,including a prospective buyer. Nothing illegal in that.

Whether it is wise or would be advised as the best course by the seller's solicitor is another matter entirely.

not a reply to OP but an observation only,

this seems to be coming a more common practice , my son did it last year and I have heard of a neighbours aunt moving into the house she was buying weeks before completion,

I personally wouldn't be comfortable with it,
although my vender has said he is moving out as soon as we have exchanged ,

mgtr

This morning, lost amongst the arguments, I posted this. It might come in handy if someone ever searches the thread. Hence the re-post.

mgtr wrote: »

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

dj.boz

We did exactly this earlier this year.

We had sold our house (exchanged), but delays from from the seller of the house we were buying meant we had to split the chain. Completion on our old house came and we still hadn't exchanged. The seller (desperate to sell due to debt, but it was the debt holding up the sale) let us have the keys and move in. No agreement in place more than a verbal agreement and 'handshake'.

It took a further eight weeks to finally purchase the house. Total stress, as we didn't know whether it would go through or not. We thought we would lose the house and end up having to move out. A lot of stress was involved.

In the long term we know it will be worth it, but those eight weeks of not knowing did taint the house for us and we did startfo resent it a little. It was a huge risk, for both of us, and something that really needs thought on before going ahead with it.

ruggedtoast

Propertyfan wrote: »

Alter-ego, what a sad reply. You haven't even addressed the main point of thians 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.

You replied to the op saying the proposal would be illegal, scupper the sale and get him in trouble with an estate agents regulatory body (which doesn't even exist as far as I know).

All three parts of your advice were completely wrong.