PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Move from hell, purchasers failed to complete HELP!

Options
1202123252630

Comments

  • dktreesea
    dktreesea Posts: 5,736 Forumite
    Jhoney wrote: »
    Not necessarily does being first in the chain make you a FTB. Further, in the event that a vendor (e.g property 2) doesn't sell, they would still incur costs for accrued interest on their loan, possibly accommodation/business costs and legals fees and be entitled to compensation.

    What about scenarios where the bottom of the chain is not the where the delay is? A different system would have to look at all these factors too and your example does not perform well in those circumstances.

    My point though, was that this has been a dreadful experience to read as someone who is not a FTB and I think it would be more difficult a situation emotionally and financially to have been in if that were the case.

    House buying is a choice, if/when someone chooses one of the options available, you take the rules too. They all have them.
    Jhoney wrote: »
    @ dktreesea

    You seem to be arguing against what IS in the contract -
    " I find it amazing in Britain that someone who is trying to buy or sell a house has to be concerned about the actions of someone who could potentially be 5 or 6 sales away from themselves. Someone neither they, nor their buyer, much less the person selling to them, has any contractual relationship with"

    And arguing in favour of what isn't in it?

    "Why should the vendor waive the penalty element? His buyer has failed to complete. The remainder of the chain is not his concern. "


    Say you are somewhere in the middle of a chain, where all buyers/sellers seek to settle on the same day. You're number 4 in a chain of 9. Your only legal relationships are between you and your buyer (no 3) and you and your seller (no 5).


    Say for whatever reason, no 2 in the chain holds up proceedings. That, to me, is not a good enough excuse for no 3 to delay their purchase of your property. That should have finance in place to cover that contingency. Nor for you to delay your own purchase.


    The impression I have is that, because number 2 delayed, numbers 3 through to 9 in the chain can also all opt to delay their settlements AND pass on all the resulting costs down to number 2 in the chain, i.e. he becomes liable for the losses of everyone above him in the chain. That doesn't see right to me, because it would seem to absolve everyone above number 2 in the chain of taking responsibility for completing their own sales/purchases.
  • jadex
    jadex Posts: 797 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    stator wrote: »
    Not unusual for people who have renovated to get inflated ideas about the value of their property. The closest comparable sale on that street was lower than their current asking price still
    http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=45271868&sale=52153733&country=england
    48 sq metres less though (160 against 208) and 4th "bedroom" is rather a boxroom (2.64x2.34)
  • moneyistooshorttomention
    moneyistooshorttomention Posts: 17,940 Forumite
    edited 18 January 2015 at 8:33AM
    dktreesea wrote: »
    Say you are somewhere in the middle of a chain, where all buyers/sellers seek to settle on the same day. You're number 4 in a chain of 9. Your only legal relationships are between you and your buyer (no 3) and you and your seller (no 5).


    Say for whatever reason, no 2 in the chain holds up proceedings. That, to me, is not a good enough excuse for no 3 to delay their purchase of your property. That should have finance in place to cover that contingency. Nor for you to delay your own purchase.


    The impression I have is that, because number 2 delayed, numbers 3 through to 9 in the chain can also all opt to delay their settlements AND pass on all the resulting costs down to number 2 in the chain, i.e. he becomes liable for the losses of everyone above him in the chain. That doesn't see right to me, because it would seem to absolve everyone above number 2 in the chain of taking responsibility for completing their own sales/purchases.

    I've been reading it as that a seller who gets mucked-around by their buyer not completing passes all attendant costs incurred because of that down to their buyer.

    To me, I interpreted that as being each house in the chain passes costs they've incurred down to the direct buyer (ie their own) that inflicted those costs on them.

    ie 1 to 1
    then beneath them
    another 1 to 1

    and so on.

    My head hurts...not had my first cup of coffee yet this morning.

    Is there a multiplier effect then if its a chain?

    That is = no. 2 is the Awkward S*d.
    So no 9 sues no 8 for their costs.
    Then no. 8 has to sue no. 7 for their costs AND the costs passed on to them to do with no. 9
    Then no. 7 has to sue no. 6 for their costs AND costs passed on from no. 8 AND the costs passed down from no. 9

    ie each stage in that chain is suing the one below them for their own costs and adding in another set of costs per every household above them in chain.

    So - by the time we get down to no. 2 (ie the Awkward S*d who caused all the trouble in the first place), then No. 2 is liable for:
    - No. 3's costs directly
    - AND No. 4s costs, No. 5s cost, No. 6s cost, No. 7s cost, No. 8s costs and No. 9s costs

    Thus the troublemaker in that scenario (ie No. 2) is liable for 7 peoples sets of costs?

    Have I got that right? Is that how the system operates?

    .......and then, at that sort of number of people in the chain No. 2 has to dig heavily into their House Equity money and savings to cover all these costs if they're basically an honourable person (doubtful in view of them causing this trouble in the first place I know...:cool:) or "goes bankrupt" to avoid all these costs if they're not on the other hand presumably (and then No. 3 to No. 9 respectively in this chain land up losing steadily increasing amounts of money the lower down the chain they are).
  • gallygirl
    gallygirl Posts: 17,240 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    jadex wrote: »
    48 sq metres less though (160 against 208) and 4th "bedroom" is rather a boxroom (2.64x2.34)
    Also a more modern property so doesn't have the same period appeal.
    A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort
    :) Mortgage Balance = £0 :)
    "Do what others won't early in life so you can do what others can't later in life"
  • Jhoney_2
    Jhoney_2 Posts: 1,198 Forumite
    edited 18 January 2015 at 11:55AM
    dktreesea wrote: »
    Say you are somewhere in the middle of a chain, where all buyers/sellers seek to settle on the same day. You're number 4 in a chain of 9. Your only legal relationships are between you and your buyer (no 3) and you and your seller (no 5).

    Ok

    Say for whatever reason, no 2 in the chain holds up proceedings. That, to me, is not a good enough excuse for no 3 to delay their purchase of your property. That should have finance in place to cover that contingency. Nor for you to delay your own purchase.

    I disagree. No 3 relied upon the undertaking in the contract of no 2 - as a part of the payment to No 4.

    The impression I have is that, because number 2 delayed, numbers 3 through to 9 in the chain can also all opt to delay their settlements AND pass on all the resulting costs down to number 2 in the chain, i.e. he becomes liable for the losses of everyone above him in the chain. Yes

    That doesn't see right to me, because it would seem to absolve everyone above number 2 in the chain of taking responsibility for completing their own sales/purchases.

    Not absolved, as they are sued 9-8 8-7 etc, but the costs are incurred by the person responsible for the breach of contract - No 2, Yes

    You keep giving me examples, which I totally understand.

    The issue is in our (chain) system the contract allows for this and everyone involved has signed up to that with the said consequences in the contract. You fail to comply and you face those consequences - that's it. Exactly as per your last paragraph.

    Why everyone should run around trying to get a bridging loan to finance a sale just in case is beyond me and unrealistic. Number 2 deserves everything coming to them, imv.
  • Jhoney_2
    Jhoney_2 Posts: 1,198 Forumite
    I've been reading it as that a seller who gets mucked-around by their buyer not completing passes all attendant costs incurred because of that down to their buyer.

    To me, I interpreted that as being each house in the chain passes costs they've incurred down to the direct buyer (ie their own) that inflicted those costs on them.

    ie 1 to 1
    then beneath them
    another 1 to 1

    and so on.

    My head hurts...not had my first cup of coffee yet this morning.

    Is there a multiplier effect then if its a chain?

    That is = no. 2 is the Awkward S*d.
    So no 9 sues no 8 for their costs.
    Then no. 8 has to sue no. 7 for their costs AND the costs passed on to them to do with no. 9
    Then no. 7 has to sue no. 6 for their costs AND costs passed on from no. 8 AND the costs passed down from no. 9

    ie each stage in that chain is suing the one below them for their own costs and adding in another set of costs per every household above them in chain.

    So - by the time we get down to no. 2 (ie the Awkward S*d who caused all the trouble in the first place), then No. 2 is liable for:
    - No. 3's costs directly
    - AND No. 4s costs, No. 5s cost, No. 6s cost, No. 7s cost, No. 8s costs and No. 9s costs

    Thus the troublemaker in that scenario (ie No. 2) is liable for 7 peoples sets of costs?

    Have I got that right? Is that how the system operates?

    .......and then, at that sort of number of people in the chain No. 2 has to dig heavily into their House Equity money and savings to cover all these costs if they're basically an honourable person (doubtful in view of them causing this trouble in the first place I know...:cool:) or "goes bankrupt" to avoid all these costs if they're not on the other hand presumably (and then No. 3 to No. 9 respectively in this chain land up losing steadily increasing amounts of money the lower down the chain they are).

    Pretty much yes, that punitive reality and supposedly the deterrent. Although the costs must be reasonable, so a stay at the penthouse suite of a 5 star hotel would be a hard sell for costs in most circumstances.
  • Jhoney wrote: »
    Pretty much yes, that punitive reality and supposedly the deterrent. Although the costs must be reasonable, so a stay at the penthouse suite of a 5 star hotel would be a hard sell for costs in most circumstances.

    Thanks.

    That would explain why OP's seller demanded they were "out of it" before any Multiplying Effect came into the equation anywhere, ie they were staging their own personal "1 to 1" scenario because the person they were dealing with (ie OP) was below them in the chain and therefore going to have some Multiplier Effect going on and they wanted their costs sorted and out of the way before anyone else got involved with what happened about other peoples costs being passed down the chain and added on to "1 to 1" effect costs.

    Gotcha. I think...
  • Jhoney_2
    Jhoney_2 Posts: 1,198 Forumite
    If anyone wants to see more on this, here are to worth reading

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1806123

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1815053

    Yes they did, but this was unfair as they mad it a part of the sale that they get restitution immediately and that is not in the contract. Goes to show how people can insist on rules from others (hence requesting costs for the breach) but then happily break them themselves (refuse to complete) when it suits their own needs.
  • dktreesea
    dktreesea Posts: 5,736 Forumite
    Jhoney wrote: »
    If anyone wants to see more on this, here are to worth reading

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1806123

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1815053

    Yes they did, but this was unfair as they mad it a part of the sale that they get restitution immediately and that is not in the contract. Goes to show how people can insist on rules from others (hence requesting costs for the breach) but then happily break them themselves (refuse to complete) when it suits their own needs.


    So the seller can make demands, even if not part of the contract? This sounds a ludicrous situation.


    You can get chains up here in Scotland, though they seem to be rare. What you don't get so much of is gazumping, and it's evil twin, gazundering.


    If a buyer makes an offer up here, the seller, to accept it, has to make written acceptance of the offer, so a contract is struck at that point. If the seller then wants to pull out, because they have got a better offer, there are financial penalties stipulated in the contract. Likewise for the buyer, if they get cold feet.


    This does seem different to down south, where our cousins, when they were looking to buy, made quite a few offers on properties they were interested in, with no financial consequences if either they, or their would be sellers, chose to pull out later on in the process. It took them six months, - months, mind you - from when they had an offer accepted which went all the way through to settlement.


    No wonder so many people buy new builds in preference to an existing house. I used to think new builds were a total waste of money, but now I see the advantages...
  • princeofpounds
    princeofpounds Posts: 10,396 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    So how does the Scottish system deal with issues raised by survey? In England, when you pay for a survey and all the associated levels, you 'know' your price offer is accepted, but if you discover a hidden problem then you are not trapped.

    Do you have to survey a house before making an offer, plus do all the searches etc.? And what happens if you make a viewing, make an offer, then find out every internal timber in the house is rotten?
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.6K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.8K Life & Family
  • 256.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.