House sale falling through after exchange of contracts

mrginge

SmlSave wrote: »

I hope it all works out for you Daletoon7, keep us updated please?

In 8 years I've never experienced failure to compete over 24hrs and my boss hasn't in the past 47 years! He was saying that it can cost easily over half a million in principle with court fees etc

My last buyer failed to complete on time, but i had purposely split the sale from our onward purchase. My response on being given the news was along the lines of 'well just sort it on Monday'

The extra cost of a couple weeks storage and bunking down with relatives was more than worth it for an entirely stress free move. Obviously not possible for everyone, but I would highly recommend it.

mrginge

cajef wrote: »

How can a builder do alteratiions to the property which is not yet the buyers until after completion, are you allowing it before you complete?

Only a maniac would agree to this.

eddddy

Daletoon7 wrote: »

I know - as it stands we have exchanged and the estate agent has said they will get the survey and my buyer will send a builder in to do the work hopefully before the 1st of April then get it reinspected and then completed.

You don't do that just because as EA tells you to. Do you understand the risks?

You need a really good solicitor to advise you.

Also, if you really have exchanged and there is a chain above you, you're likely to need a good litigation solicitor. It's possible that you will be sued for many, many thousands.

SmlSave

pathtofreedom wrote: »

If you are selling a house to them, you wouldn't let them come rip your kitchen out until you have completed, not just exchanged.

It doesn't happen often but such a situation is not unusual.

The seller agrees to do the work because it's highly likely any other potential buyers will also insist on the same. Often the buyer will either threaten to pull out if the work is not done or offers more money subject to the work being done.

Daletoon7

We have exchanged - last week. The story keeps changing depending on who you talk to but it now appears that the mortgage offer was 100% retained until work on the kitchen and bathroom was done according to their survey. I have not seen the mortgage offer or survey as its nothing to do with me. Only my buyer, her broker, her financial advisor and her solicetor would have seen this morgage offer and survey. Yet none of them picked this up and exchanged. So when they went to get the funds from the mortgage company - they could not get any as the work advised on the survey (again I don't know what this is as I have not seen it) had not been done.

I have a really small kitchen and bathroom (it's a flat) which is a bit dated. I never advertised it as a new or in perfect condition. The buyer even came around with her builder so they knew they needed a bit of investment. Because it's buy to let I think the bank wanted to make sure she could rent it straight away.

She needs the mortgage and as its 100% retained until she does the work - we are all stuck

Daletoon7

If I am sued it will be passed down the chain. I had no way of seeing the mortgage offer to my buyer or the inspection she did for her lender on my flat. The only people to see that would be my buyer and her legal team. They should not have exchanged in these circumstances - the first time I knew about this issue was today. I've done everything legally I could and have been let down by others

pinkshoes

Daletoon7 wrote: »

She needs the mortgage and as its 100% retained until she does the work - we are all stuck

This doesn't make sense.

If the mortgage lender will not release the money until the work is done on the bathroom and kitchen, does that mean that you were allowing a builder to come round inbetween exchange and completion to do this work? Are you crazy??

Or did the lender just want proof that she had additional cash to pay for the work immediately after completion?

Why can't she just get a residential mortgage instead of a BTL so she can perhaps complete tomorrow?

fairy_lights

Daletoon7 wrote: »

I have a really small kitchen and bathroom (it's a flat) which is a bit dated. I never advertised it as a new or in perfect condition. The buyer even came around with her builder so they knew they needed a bit of investment. Because it's buy to let I think the bank wanted to make sure she could rent it straight away.

She needs the mortgage and as its 100% retained until she does the work - we are all stuck

I don't understand why her mortgage company would expect her to be able to carry out a refurb on the kitchen and bathroom of a property she doesn't own? Surely if they didn't think the property was in a rentable condition they would have just turned her down outright.

marksoton

OP, i don't think you're being given the full truth....

eddddy

marksoton wrote: »

OP, i don't think you're being given the full truth....

I suspect it's because the OP is being updated by the EA.

It's fine for the OP to listen to what the EA has to say - but they should wait for their solicitor's feedback and advice before agreeing to anything or taking any action.