Vendor Pulled Out

TBagpuss

Sorry to hear this. I had a similar experience, with first my seller pulling out (after I had paid for a survey and an electrical survey, and then with my buyer pulling out as he went on a spending spree on credit cads and got his mortgage offer withdrawn.

It's horrible when it happens. In my case, when i found a new property and re-applied for my mortgage, the original valuation fee was refunded , which was something.

And ultimately, the house and location I found are better than the one that got away, (and a bit less expensive) so don;t give up hope that you will find somewhere new you can love.

Keith1985

This sucks, I feel for you I really do. I'm an Estate Agent and there's nothing worse than a chain collapsing like this, as we don't get paid! It happens all too often at the moment, the national average is 1 in 4 chains collapsing.

All the best with finding something else, this one obviously wasn't meant to be.

Thrugelmir

karlm14 wrote: »

Decided after the process has been going on since July that she was too stressed to move.

You never know what curved balls may come way when purchasing a house. It's far from the straightforward transaction that it appears it should be. I'm sure there's far more to the tale. That you'll never know.

Lord_Baltimore

Shoot me down because I've not thought this through but....if a vendor pulls out post survey, how about they have to pay 50% of the survey cost?

TwistedPsycho

My answer would be slightly more radical Lord Baltimore; maybe the vendor should be made to pay for a survey before it goes on the market.

Then the period prior to commitment (which may or may not be the point we currently know as Exchange) could be much less and the vendor can simply factor the cost into the property price.

AdrianC

TwistedPsycho wrote: »

maybe the vendor should be made to pay for a survey before it goes on the market.

Three points...

Firstly, it doesn't address legal problems, and it's the legals that take the time, nor does it affect external influences.
Secondly, I and many others don't want or need a survey, because we're capable of doing all the basic stuff ourselves, so it just increases the cost for us. Some people are happy with an HBR, some want a full structural. And what about reports on individual areas of concern?
Thirdly, would you trust a survey that the vendor has commissioned? No, nor me.
On a more minor level, there's no contractual relationship between the buyer and the surveyor, in case of any issues missed - although that could easily be written into the Ts & Cs to allow comeback.

Thrugelmir

TwistedPsycho wrote: »

My answer would be slightly more radical Lord Baltimore; maybe the vendor should be made to pay for a survey before it goes on the market.

In the main the survey is conducted on behalf of the lender. As the property is the security for the loan. So what the buyer pays is the reimbursement of the lenders cost incurred.

martin.cat

This was what the HIP's were brought in for but nobody liked them as vendors had to pay money upfront and it also highlighted deficiencies.

AdrianC

Thrugelmir wrote: »

In the main the survey is conducted on behalf of the lender.

The lender, where there is one, is usually happy with a basic valuation, though - which is basically just a quick count of walls and a glance around to make sure there's nothing hanging off.

martin.cat

To be fair to the vender if they have pulled out of a purchase they have lost money too so it's at least 50/50 as they will probably paid out more if buy a more expensive property