Backing out of house sale

Fizzymartini

For the life of me, I don't understand why the OP is getting so much grief over a compassionate reason, when this thread has hardly any replies, and the sellers there are backing out specifically just to remarket and effectively screw over their buyers.

martan01

AdrianC wrote: »

Trouble is, "family issues" most certainly _aren't_ irrelevant. They're quite often the reason people are moving in the first place.

So perhaps they should fully consider their position before placing their house on the market and accepting an offer in the first place.

Let's not forget the consequences of pulling out of a purchase cause massive family issues for others in the chain, financially, for the security of the other parties and for the security of their children.

It's far too easy to use emotive language and talk about family issues etc, it basically defers responsibility. This is a massive decision and a massive transaction, as such it should not be made lightly. Once it is made you should be responsible for your decision and held to it, with the exceptions I have already mentioned (structural etc) which materially change the agreement.

AdrianC

martan01 wrote: »

So perhaps they should fully consider their position before placing their house on the market and accepting an offer in the first place.

Perhaps that position changes in the meantime. As it did here.

Would it make a difference if it'd been the OP expecting a child instead of a grandchild?

Would it make a difference if the OP lost a child or grandchild?

Would it make a difference if the OP lost their husband?

They're all "family issues", after all.

Let's not forget the consequences of pulling out of a purchase cause massive family issues for others in the chain, financially, for the security of the other parties and for the security of their children.

If the chain collapses for what you deem "legitimate" reasons, are those consequences any different?

George_Michael

martan01 wrote: »

It's easy to wail about how it's the law, and that the law isn't always fair, and even throw in a generic "rich person, corporation" rant. It doesn't change the fact that the system is wrong, there are working examples of where it is fairer and as a result, in this country it needs to be reformed.

How can mentioning something that is factually correct be "wailing"?
I agree that many systems are wrong in this country but until they are changed, they are all we have and provided people work within the law, they are not doing anything legally wrong.

If people are not happy with a particular law, then fight to try to get it changed.

dktreesea

demontfort wrote: »

Clearly plenty of people on here are willing to indulge the OPs selfish behaviour and no doubt would happily do the same as her. Yes it’s her decison but in my mind her excuse for not moving is one of the lamest excuses in the book. If somebody pulled out of a sale with me for that reason I’d think they were just scum.

Who cares about her grandkid that’s for her son and his wife to deal with and should not be used as an excuse for backing out of this deal and so costing many people a lot of time and money. She can get the train 80 miles to see them when she wants. My grandparents lived 100 miles and 1000 miles away respectively, big deal that’s the way the world works The OP is just a selfish, self indulgent timewaster.

The worst of it is the fella who makes a very rational comment on an online forum about a potential miscarriage gets more abuse than the OP who is really messing with people’s lives. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but are you seriously suggesting that the OP should put the concerns of strangers - be they the ones hoping to buy her house or the ones selling her the house 80 miles away) ahead of her own family?

It's not as if the OP won't be out of pocket. They will at a minimum have their solicitors fees to date to pay. As to the seller, I would never list my house with an agent who wanted fees that would be incurred regardless of whether he/she achieved contract completion. Not in a million years. And if they have done a structural survey, presumably that can be used for all prospective buyers going forward. So it isn't wasted money. Yes, one break in the chain could potentially cause 40 sales to fall over. That's not any buyer or seller's fault. Rather it is the fault of the property law in England and Wales.

OP, trust your instincts. Buying and/or selling a house are very big decisions. You are right to back out if you feel this isn't the right decision for you at this time due to a change of circumstances.

martan01

AdrianC wrote: »

Perhaps that position changes in the meantime. As it did here.

Would it make a difference if it'd been the OP expecting a child instead of a grandchild?

Would it make a difference if the OP lost a child or grandchild?

Would it make a difference if the OP lost their husband?

They're all "family issues", after all.



If the chain collapses for what you deem "legitimate" reasons, are those consequences any different?

What a ridiculously emotive post. What if, what if, what if.

If you are expecting life changing news, or it is likely then don't sell your house, we are generally only talking about a 3 month window. As I've stated time and time again, make an informed decision, consider all of those extreme scenarios before you accept an offer. Ultimately do you want to move......

What if the OP got the baby news after exchange? Or completion?

The only difference between what I have proposed and the current system is that both parties will be protected from the off. As they are in countless other countries, where they seem to be managing.

It's easy to use extreme examples and bleat on about families but the current system as it stands is prejudiced and unfair.

AdrianC

dktreesea wrote: »

Yes, one break in the chain could potentially cause 40 sales to fall over. That's not any buyer or seller's fault. Rather it is the fault of the property law in England and Wales.

It'll always happen in ANY system where people - buyers and sellers - are relying on using the money from a sale to fund a purchase. Short of breaking every chain (but how? Bridging loans? Sell-rent-buy?) it is inevitable.

How does it work in these other, "better" systems? Seems to me that the only way they are "better" is in erecting earlier financial barriers to not progressing with the sale.

Dukesy

My goodness, I can't believe how full of bile, venom and grudges some people here are! The OP asked a question, she is clearly not looking to screw people over, and all of this abuse is just unnecessary.

Yes, it's !!!! When a vendor/buyer pulls out, for whatever reason, but it happens. We all know this when we enter into the process, and we have to suck it up and move on.

When we were buying our house, our vendor threatened to pull out as it was taking too long. Bearing in mind it was an uninhabited inheritence, this seemed highly unfair, especially as their solicitor (I'm not totally excusing ours either) was largely responsible for the delays, as questions being asked by our solicitor were not being answered, and documents were not being sent. It would have put us in a dreadful position, as when we finally got to completion, I was days from giving birth, and our mortgage offer had almost expired, but they were within their rights to do so. Albeit for a crap reason.

The OP, however, has a very good reason for pulling out. Yes, morally it's not wonderful, but she should do whatever she feels is the best option for her and her family. I feel hugely for the others in the chain, but as I say, this is the reality of the property market, and if people can't pick themselves up and move on, then they probably shouldn't be getting involved with property at all.

Davesnave

Lokolo wrote: »

People are well within their rights to express their views, on this thread, or any other thread on MSE.

Yes, of course, people are fully entitled to express their views on any thread they like. I don't recall saying they couldn't.

David_Aston

It would be nice if the op would just round off this thread by stating they have agreed to contribute to the their buyers costs?