is gazumping illegal these days?

googler

spacey2012 wrote: »

Buyers do mess about for months and pull out, this is why you leave the house for sale until they finish messing about and get their backsides in to the office and sign the contract

So the solution is to reform the system in E&W such that there's earlier, firmer commitment from both parties. .....?

spacey2012

googler wrote: »

So the solution is to reform the system in E&W such that there's earlier, firmer commitment from both parties. .....?

In a lot of countries, the survey has to be independently done before market and all searches performed then it can go on sale and the first to put a deposit down buys.

A bit like having an MOT and log book when buying a car and it works well when you buy a car, so yes I would agree.

The_White_Horse

because you all seem to think it is morally outrageous (not that morals come into it) for a seller to accept a bigger bid that one already accepted - yet would see nothing wrong in the buyer finding a better a property and walking away - or are you saying that once you have put an offer on the property you MUST by it and it is outrageous not to, even if your dream house comes on the market?

googler

spacey2012 wrote: »

In a lot of countries, the survey has to be independently done before market and all searches performed then it can go on sale and the first to put a deposit down buys.

A bit like having an MOT and log book when buying a car and it works well when you buy a car, so yes I would agree.

Exactly. Read about 'home reports' in the Scottish system (doesn't include searches, but...)

There was the opportunity to do the same in E&W with HIPs, but it floundered for some reason. Why do you think that was?

However, merely having a survey in advance doesn't give any more certainty than at present, does it?

Principia_2

The_White_Horse wrote: »

because you all seem to think it is morally outrageous (not that morals come into it) for a seller to accept a bigger bid that one already accepted - yet would see nothing wrong in the buyer finding a better a property and walking away - or are you saying that once you have put an offer on the property you MUST by it and it is outrageous not to, even if your dream house comes on the market?

Why don't you start a new thread in a few months saying that you've offered on a house and now are going to gazunder the seller a few days before exchange.

I think if you believe you will get a lot of posts congratulating you on your business acumen - then you are going to be disappointed.

However, from my perspective, I am trying to sell a house, I want the experience to be as smooth as a difficult and fraught experience can be so I will take measures to try and reduce my risks and that includes vetting my buyers. Morals have little to do with it - I'd be willing to sell my house to lots of people who behave in ways that I personally don't agree with, as long as their behaviour is not such that it may impact on my relationship with them as a buyer.

movilogo

I think it is completely unfair that the seller should take all the risk whilst the buyer can just swan about and buy something else.

Buyer pays for survery, searches, mortgage fee if applicable etc.

In the meantime, if seller has paid off mortgage, pays nothing (except council tax/insurance).

In a way, both parities are taking risks.

If there is no trust on each side, the house purchase can't proceed in England & Wales.

hazyjo

The_White_Horse wrote: »

because you all seem to think it is morally outrageous (not that morals come into it) for a seller to accept a bigger bid that one already accepted - yet would see nothing wrong in the buyer finding a better a property and walking away - or are you saying that once you have put an offer on the property you MUST by it and it is outrageous not to, even if your dream house comes on the market?

One would hope that the majority of people wait for the right/dream house before spending tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds.

I might keep an an eye on RM, but I wouldn't be actively viewing properties still.

I sit firmly in support of both sides - if the buyer did realise they'd made a mistake and wanted to buy another house and pull out, fine. I agree they shouldn't spend £££s on the wrong house. BUT that works both ways. If the vendor realised there was no perfect house out there in their budget, or Aunt Ethel keeled over and died and left them £200k and they decided to buy a bigger house, they'd obviously have to let the people down they were buying from (and risk losing their own buyer).

Jx
PS I actually think it a shame that people think morals don't come into it, but, as I said, each to their own (in support of Principia's post, I agree they don't have to share your 'morality', all I'm saying is that a deal's a deal and that it is surely at least morally right to stick to that handshake)!

googler

The_White_Horse wrote: »

because you all seem to think it is morally outrageous (not that morals come into it) for a seller to accept a bigger bid that one already accepted - yet would see nothing wrong in the buyer finding a better a property and walking away - or are you saying that once you have put an offer on the property you MUST by it and it is outrageous not to, even if your dream house comes on the market?

I think buyers, when they make an offer, and have that offer accepted, should stick to buying that house, unless extenuating circumstances prevent it.

I don't think extenuating circumstances include

"I found something better/larger/cheaper/prettier/better decorated"
"I changed my mind"

I also think that when sellers accept an offer, that they should stand by the terms of what they accepted, and not demand £10, 20 or £30k more from the buyer because "The market's gone up"

Principia_2

movilogo wrote: »

In a way, both parities are taking risks.

If there is no trust on each side, the house purchase can't proceed in England & Wales.

If I were a less verbal person - this is exactly what I would have said

Dan-Dan

apart from the parities bit?