Previous owner appealing reposession after I've exchanged contracts!

Guest101

The fact this is a bank really changes nothing.

I would tell them we either complete on the day or you take them to court. To avoid this the bank can return ur deposit and pay you the same again as compensation, will probably be the quickest money you'll make.

The original owner I imagine is going to court because of the conduct of the repo rather than the arrears they were clearly in. Most likely because they believe the house is being sold undervalue

POPPYOSCAR

mystic_trev wrote: »

Wrong,Exchange of Contracts are legally binding, otherwise they'd be no point in a Contract.

You would think so.

However, it is not so simple.

We were once in the position of having exchanged contracts but the agent was trying to get us to sell the contract on for £10,000.

To cut a long story short we would have to go to court to stop the vendor from selling to someone else and even then they could not be forced to sell to us. We would then have to sue for breach of contract. So in some cases it may be worthwhile for the vendor to break the contract.

It was only down to our brilliant solicitor that we ended up getting the property.

mystic_trev

If one of the parties is then not ready, willing and able to complete on the agreed completion date, the other party can service Notice to Complete on the defaulting party. Interest on the outstanding balance of the contract price (usually 4% above bank base rate) will start to run from the day completion should have taken place.

Once the Completion dates passes, you need to get your Solicitor to serve the Notice. This isn't a time to be tame with your Solicitor, tell them to Serve notice.

Guest101

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

You would think so.

However, it is not so simple.

We were once in the position of having exchanged contracts but the agent was trying to get us to sell the contract on for £10,000.

To cut a long story short we would have to go to court to stop the vendor from selling to someone else and even then they could not be forced to sell to us. We would then have to sue for breach of contract. So in some cases it may be worthwhile for the vendor to break the contract.

It was only down to our brilliant solicitor that we ended up getting the property.

No your wrong, why were they asking you to sell the contract if u had no rights?! Think it thru

POPPYOSCAR

Guest101 wrote: »

No your wrong, why were they asking you to sell the contract if u had no rights?! Think it thru

Have you been in that position? We have.

I did not say that we did not have rights but it is not as simple as saying that because you have exchanged contracts that the sale must complete.

The vendor can still sell to someone else( or decide not to sell at all), you then have to decide if you want to take steps to prevent this while the matter goes to court and then the hassle of suing them for breach of contract -not something I relished doing at the time as I was pregnant.

AnnieO1234

First of all exchange is what makes it legally binding, you can't back out without potentially being sued to complete at astronomic costs.

However, there is a very basic principle in English law which reads, from the Latin, "no-one can give what he has not got". It usually relates to the sale of stolen goods, just because someone has bought the item legitimately doesn't mean they own it as the title remains with the person it was stolen from. I would imagine that if a court decides that the repossession was illegal, then the same principal would apply in that the bank cannot sell something to you they do not own.

I would be taking third party legal advice on this, is it definitely a solicitor you are using and not merely a legal executive or worse a fellow of the ILEX?

Check the law society website and find the list of equity partners in the firm, preferably the one who oversees conveyancing. Speak to them directly, also check your terms of business letter it should note a principal to direct issues to in the event of problems.

Xxx

Jenniefour

FirstTimeBuyer99 wrote: »

Thank you. It's a freehold house, but was previously owned by the local authority. The service charge is annual, and I guess it is just for upkeep of some small bits of green around the estate.
Thank you for your help.

Thanks for clarifying that - and ignore my previous reply!

Strapped

mystic_trev wrote: »

Wrong,Exchange of Contracts are legally binding, otherwise they'd be no point in a Contract.

They are "legally binding", but that doesn't mean you definitely get the house. I could enter into a contract with you to sell you Buckingham Palace. But you wouldn't then be able to march in and chuck Queenie out. However, you could sue me for breaching the contract and the courts would decide what would be fair compensation.

silvercar

Repossessions being overturned are rare. repossessions being overturned after a property has been sold are rarer still. Anyone found any cases on the web?

Remember also the property has been empty for 3 months, so the previous owner was in all likelihood in breach of their mortgage terms irrespective of arrears.

If this was generally a possibility we would know that it is a risk when buying a repo, but its never been quoted.

sonastin

poet123 wrote: »

I don't think you have much redress, until completion a repo can be offered on again, taken off the market, other issues occur. Exchange of contracts is not legally binding.

Straight choice, wait or walk away.

They won't insure the property either, but the bank will be the ones with keys, not the previous "owner". All services will be off and it will have been sold as seen.

If you are not desperate to move I would wait rather than lose survey fees and solicitors fees which will still be payable I am afraid.

Ignore this response - it is full of wrong information. Once you have exchanged contracts, you have rights of redress as the many wise posters here have already suggested.

If your conveyancer is not up to the job, it is worth a second opinion. There is no shame in him not having the experience to deal with this situation but he is being negligent if he isn't referring you to someone who has.