House sale about to collapse

londonmaiden

Hello

We are in the process of trying to buy a house which is on the verge of falling through. We only found out after the survey from our Solicitor that there is a 25 year lease on the roof owing to some free solar panels which the vendor had installed without consent or proper building regs. The vendor has been asked over 72 hours ago to supply information on the lease but this has not been forthcoming. Now we are being told to chase up the estate agents so they can chase the vendor for the information. Firstly, the particulars of the property mentioned nothing about the lease only that there is 'solar panels installed which greatly improve the running cost of the property'. We feel that this is a misrepresentation by the agent as there was no mention of the lease at any point even when we asked on viewing the property about the panels, all they said was 'oh yes they save loads of money on the bills'. To me this is the same as buying a garage that is leasehold with the property and nothing at all being mentioned about it? It is unlikely our lender will agree to our mortgage now because of this and we now going to be out of pocket but will seek to recover our costs legally.

We are very frustrated and just wondered if anyone has anyone had a similar experience to this or any advice?

I am sorry if this seems a repeat of a thread I posted earlier but I didn't include all of the information I now have.

Thanks

DRP

londonmaiden wrote: »

The vendor has been asked over 72 hours ago to supply information on the lease but this has not been forthcoming.

72 hours ago ..er.. Friday afternoon?

Keep pushing for the full information and (obv) don't exchange without it. Fri>Monday isn't really enough time though.

If it turns out the solar panels are leased I would be looking at a hefty price reduction.

Bantex_2

EA only goes on what he has been told by the vendor.

londonmaiden

72 hours in working days so information was requested on Wednesday, also the vendor requested a quick 28 day exchange, we obviously want a quick exchange too but we are now not the ones now holding up the chain. Thanks, I think we will look for a reduction but don't even think our mortgage lender will touch it as the house terms now don't 'fulfil' their requirements to lend.

And Bantex, yes, but there have been two buyers pull out prior to us, one who paid for a full survey so they would have been fully aware of this issue and really looking at the solar panels and not asking questions from their point of view they have not marketed the property in a responsible and fair way to prospective buyers.

Larsson67

What a nightmare! Found this on the net, seems your next step is to contact your lender ASAP.

Rooftops which are leased to a solar panel provider (usually in return for the installation of the solar panels free of charge) can cause particular problems. The first thing to check is the extent of the airspace leased to the provider. The extent of this may prevent extensions into the roof and it might be difficult to carry out repairs to the roof without infringing the terms of the lease or without obtaining the consent of the lessee.

Where a prospective buyer requiring a mortgage is looking to purchase a property subject to a rooftop lease, the lender will need to be satisfied its lender’s “minimum requirements” are met. If the lease does not meet those requirements, the lender may require the lease to be varied. It is very important to contact the mortgage lender at an early stage in the process to check its requirements and the process involved. Importantly, the lender will need to be satisfied that the installer/lessee is accredited under the Microgeneration Certification Scheme and that the lease has been contracted out of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

Perhaps most important of all, the lender will probably insist upon a break clause allowing it to terminate the lease if it feels that the presence of the solar panels is likely to make a property harder to sell (if it has to exercise its power of sale). If the break clause is exercised, then the company which installed the solar equipment will lose everything (it would have installed the solar equipment free of charge on the basis of a guaranteed return for a likely 25-year period from the Feed In Tariffs Scheme).

Debt_Free_Chick

londonmaiden wrote: »

Firstly, the particulars of the property mentioned nothing about the lease only that there is 'solar panels installed which greatly improve the running cost of the property'. We feel that this is a misrepresentation by the agent as there was no mention of the lease at any point even when we asked on viewing the property about the panels, all they said was 'oh yes they save loads of money on the bills'.

It's only misrepresentation if the EA knew the real position and failed to disclose it.

In reality, many homeowners have done this without realising exactly what they've signed up to. I rather suspect that this is the case with your sellers - they simply don't realise that they've let out their roof .....!

I fear that many more such cases will start to come to light (no pun intended, but funny eh? :T) as these properties come on to the market. Some folk laid out capital and bought their own solar panels - others were "duped" (might be a bit strong, but not far from the reality) and only heard that the panels "were free" without seeing that the cost of the panels were effectively upfront rent for occupation of the roof space.

ian103

we looked at a house with solar panels - free install and a 25 year lease. the estate knew and was concerned, they even found out the cost of buying out of the lease.

the panels were very new so it was a maximum cost of £32k. what a rip off as it would have cost £7k ish for a new install.

we offered significantly less than the asking price to offset this cost.

in the end we walked away as it was too much trouble to resolve, other concern was if we decided to sell in the future

londonmaiden

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

It's only misrepresentation if the EA knew the real position and failed to disclose it.

Yes true but as one buyer has already pulled out after spending £1500 on a survey it is likely they do know now and have done for a while.

ian103 wrote: »

in the end we walked away as it was too much trouble to resolve, other concern was if we decided to sell in the future

Yes I think this is what we will end up doing, as long as we can recover our costs we will just have to put it down to (more) bad luck!

xylophone

solar panels installed which greatly improve the running cost of the property'.

Which might be true?

'oh yes they save loads of money on the bills'.

Which might be true?

Yes true but as one buyer has already pulled out after spending £1500 on a survey it is likely they do know now and have done for a while.

Can you prove that these people pulled out on account of the situation with the solar panels and that even if they did, they gave this as a reason to the Estate Agent?

Can you prove that the Estate Agent knew that there was likely to be a query concerning the solar panels?

Did you yourselves not feel that it was up to you to clarify the solar panel situation before you made any offer etc?

ognum

londonmaiden wrote: »

Yes true but as one buyer has already pulled out after spending £1500 on a survey it is likely they do know now and have done for a while.


Yes I think this is what we will end up doing, as long as we can recover our costs we will just have to put it down to (more) bad luck!

How would you plan to recover your costs?

thequant

londonmaiden wrote: »

And Bantex, yes, but there have been two buyers pull out prior to us, one who paid for a full survey so they would have been fully aware of this issue and really looking at the solar panels and not asking questions from their point of view they have not marketed the property in a responsible and fair way to prospective buyers.

I believe there has been a precedent set (although it is going through appeal and counter appeal the last I heard)


But if a previous sale falls through because of something that was revealed in a survey. The EA is deemed to now have knowledge of the problem and have a duty to disclose, if they don't they are then liable for the buyers costs of any subsequent sales that fall through for the same reason.


Some EA's have already had to pay out because of this, although as I say the last I heard were that they are challenging this ruling.