Move from hell, purchasers failed to complete HELP!

dktreesea

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Good grief. "Duffhead" doesn't owe the OP anything. It's the OP's buyer who is in breach of contract and he / she is a different person somewhere else in the chain.

If you sign a contract to say you will buy someone's house it is up to you to ensure funds are in place. This area of law does not recognise 'he didn't pay me so I can't pay you' - which is why everyone sues down the chain.

The only person who has to worry about suing the bottom of the chain is whoever is next to last. Who probably really is bricking it as they are about to be hit for a bill for everyone else's out of pocket expenses including whatever they incurred themselves.

Well said.


Surely it is prudent for anyone in a chain to arrange bridging finance, just in case this kind of breakdown occurs, so they can at least complete their part of the contract, i.e. buy their new home on the completion date, notwithstanding they could then have a period where they have two sets of finance in place, the cost of the bridging finance falling to their buyer to cover, if their buyer delays completion? At least they would not then be in a situation where their vendor is wanting compensation, and they would be able to move houses in a timely fashion.


If everyone in the chain had bridging finance in place, then presumably the only ones who would need to actually use it, and therefore be out of pocket, were the ones second from the bottom in the chain?

sinizterguy

Everyone having bridging finance might be over-prudent.

I certainly would not want to be paying any extra for a just in-case something happens ....

But if there is a big chain in place, I would consider doing it.

stator

Is bridging finance widely available?
Wouldn't you need to be rich to qualify?

Jhoney_2

dktreesea wrote: »

Well said.


Surely it is prudent for anyone in a chain to arrange bridging finance, just in case this kind of breakdown occurs, so they can at least complete their part of the contract, i.e. buy their new home on the completion date, notwithstanding they could then have a period where they have two sets of finance in place, the cost of the bridging finance falling to their buyer to cover, if their buyer delays completion? At least they would not then be in a situation where their vendor is wanting compensation, and they would be able to move houses in a timely fashion.


If everyone in the chain had bridging finance in place, then presumably the only ones who would need to actually use it, and therefore be out of pocket, were the ones second from the bottom in the chain?

How would this be prudent if, for example it was your vendor delaying completion, so moving house is not an option? I think this is less than prudent advice - an expensive bridging loan would not be recouped as reasonable, imho.

I would suggest this method of financing is only used for things within your own control e.g a short period of works to make a property habitable/ extended or having it cleaned and decorated etc - not whilst you pursue possible legal processes...

Hoploz

...but if bridging arrangements became the norm, that everyone puts in place with solicitor in advance, in case of !!!! ups such as Megamonty's, then you would only take the finance in the event of something going wrong, in which case the additional costs incurred would be payable by the person in breach of the contract. But the whole chain would then not have to break down in this way.

Hoploz

Megamonty where are you??

My husband and I have been talking about you all day, hoping it goes through, I keep on checking back here!

We are all hoping you have completed and are far too busy to come on with an update!

dktreesea

Jhoney wrote: »

How would this be prudent if, for example it was your vendor delaying completion, so moving house is not an option? I think this is less than prudent advice - an expensive bridging loan would not be recouped as reasonable, imho.

I would suggest this method of financing is only used for things within your own control e.g a short period of works to make a property habitable/ extended or having it cleaned and decorated etc - not whilst you pursue possible legal processes...

You don't get charged any interest until you draw it down. It's for when your buyer delays completion, not your vendor, i.e. to enable you to proceed with your own purchase.


So with a chain, it seems that there is one buyer delaying completion, somewhere near the bottom of the chain, potentially causing the other buyers above him to not be able to complete.


A bridging loan is to protect you from your vendor's claim, if for any reason you are unable to complete.


Just because someone further down the chain can't complete their purchase is no reason why you shouldn't be able to complete yours.

Jhoney_2

Hoploz wrote: »

...but if bridging arrangements became the norm, that everyone puts in place with solicitor in advance, in case of !!!! ups such as Megamonty's, then you would only take the finance in the event of something going wrong, in which case the additional costs incurred would be payable by the person in breach of the contract. But the whole chain would then not have to break down in this way.

That's a big if atm isn't it?, not to mention affordability...and how much exactly? The deposit on exchange is meant to do that anyway - committing everyone to proceed with serious consequences already in place as to what will happen if you do not adhere. What if you all cannot secure a bridging loan for whatever reason?

hcb42

Bridging loan sounds like a disaster to me too. What if your buyer never completes - could be stuck for months.

Similar situation happened to my bro in law some years back. Hope OP is now busy moving those cats

Hoploz

Jhoney wrote: »

That's a big if atm isn't it?

it's not an 'if,' it won't happen, but it is an interesting idea.