Buying searches results from previous buyers

marksoton

SmlSave wrote: »

Not if it's a local land search done by the local authority and I'm assuming that the solicitors in question will check this before buying the searches on their clients behalf.

If they don't, then yes, your last sentence applies

But they're checking old information and PDF's that could have been doctored.

For example, i'm about to lay 5KM of sewer pipeline through countless landowners land. That month the previous searches were done might not include that information and may well affect the buyers view.

That isn't a hypothetical either,i'm about to do it. But it illustrates perfectly the inherent risk you take by relying on historical documents. Documents that are live and very changeable.

All for a few weeks and a couple of hundred quid.

Sianybaby82

I pulled out of a house purchase due to additional issues on the survey including a structural issue.

The people who decided to purchase the property bought my local authority searches. I was using a local branch of a national solicitors chain.

ThePants999

Marksoton, you must understand that not everyone is as extremely risk averse as you.

We're talking about a solicitor-to-solicitor transaction here. If the old buyer's solicitor says these documents are straight from the local authority, they are. Nobody is going to have doctored them. The whole conveyancing process is founded on the assumption that solicitors are trustworthy.

As for them being slightly old - so what? Newsflash, searches you get yourself are "slightly old" by the time you complete, and could have missed a new development. Hell, sometimes the searches are six months old by the time of completion. The risk is tiny, and it's increased only a tiny amount by adding an additional month.

In pure financial terms, if using an old search means a 1% chance of missing something that costs you ten grand, then on average it costs you a hundred quid. (A very conservative estimate IMO.) So if you save more than that, or if the time you save is worth that much to you (it would be to me!) then it's a clear win.

marksoton

ThePants999 wrote: »

Marksoton, you must understand that not everyone is as extremely risk averse as you.

We're talking about a solicitor-to-solicitor transaction here. If the old buyer's solicitor says these documents are straight from the local authority, they are. Nobody is going to have doctored them. The whole conveyancing process is founded on the assumption that solicitors are trustworthy.

As for them being slightly old - so what? Newsflash, searches you get yourself are "slightly old" by the time you complete, and could have missed a new development. Hell, sometimes the searches are six months old by the time of completion. The risk is tiny, and it's increased only a tiny amount by adding an additional month.

In pure financial terms, if using an old search means a 1% chance of missing something that costs you ten grand, then on average it costs you a hundred quid. (A very conservative estimate IMO.) So if you save more than that, or if the time you save is worth that much to you (it would be to me!) then it's a clear win.

Then you crack on....

davidmcn

marksoton wrote: »

But they're checking old information and PDF's that could have been doctored.

That isn't a hypothetical either,i'm about to do it. But it illustrates perfectly the inherent risk you take by relying on historical documents. Documents that are live and very changeable.

Any search is out of date as soon as it's produced. They're generally accepted to have a shelf-life of several months. I can't remember the last time, if ever, that anything significant and surprising cropped up which would have been caught by a more up to date local authority search.

And I've never heard of solicitors forging searches (which you'd have thought would be even more likely in my Scottish experience, given that the norm is for the sellers' solicitors to obtain the searches).

marksoton

davidmcn wrote: »

Any search is out of date as soon as it's produced. They're generally accepted to have a shelf-life of several months. I can't remember the last time, if ever, that anything significant and surprising cropped up which would have been caught by a more up to date local authority search.

And I've never heard of solicitors forging searches (which you'd have thought would be even more likely in my Scottish experience, given that the norm is for the sellers' solicitors to obtain the searches).

See my real life example above.

Anyhow,i'm just going to agree to disagree on this one. If people are happy to do it that's their choice. But i'd bet they are the same people who also choose the cheapest conveyancer option.......

ThePants999

I'm not the OP, Mark. I only WISH I had the opportunity to buy searches - alas, I'm having to do it the old-fashioned way :-)

antcurious

It just occurred to me, if there is "bad blood" between the seller and the previous buyers, I guess there is a chance they might not want to sell out of spite? or is it the decision of their solicitors? I would have thought if the buyers paid for them, they own them.

EmmyLou30

Marksoton is correct in that things change all the time...but in the case of new pipes being laid, they never get updated on plans for quite some time so if they are being laid now you'd wait months before the searches reflected this anyway.

fezster

You can usually have LA searches expedited by going through an intermediary. They will make a trip down to the council and look at the information in the register directly. At least, that's certainly the case down here in the south east.

I think the point about indemnity is correct though. Unless YOU are purchasing the searches from said intermediary (or your solicitor is directly going to the LA), then you will not be covered should any of the information turn out to be incorrect or missing.