Lying about 'no onward chain'?

LadyL2013

Cakeguts wrote: »

The situation is that this purchase no longer suits you because circumstances have changed. The chances are that this purchase will not proceed so you need to withdraw your offer and start looking for somewhere else.

Remember if you view a house and there is someone living in it then there will be a chain regardless of what the vendor tells you.

It's niot that it no longer suits me, I'm just annoyed that someone is clearly lying about it.


There is no one in the property allegedly. The vendor says the tenant has moved out and they currently rent elsewhere. Now I'm starting to wonder if in fact, the vendors now live in the property.

TheDebtinator

Choose another house and move on. If you're that bothered by it, it is not worth the hassle.

DumbMuscle

The vendors may well not live at the property, but may need money released from the property to fund an onward purchase - e.g. they may have moved into rented accommodation to break the chain, but then found a property which they could only afford after the sale of their existing one.

always_sunny

LadyL2013 wrote: »

Thank you!


I'm not hoping to achieve anything, I just think it's ridiculous (not to mention unfair to the buyer) to consistently deny there isn't a chain when there is one. My solicitor has even said that this is a chain because my sale depends on their sale and vice versa.

Although my solicitor has the more sceptical view that this is all a ploy by the agent so the vendor will come back to try and get more money. My solicitor is really not a fan of this agent!

It's normal to be mad about it; when I went through my transaction I was in a similar position, first I was told no chain then somehow there was a chain but then it wasn't really a chain. Honestly I still don't know! Sellers were buying another place, whether in a chain or not, no idea.

As non-English I found the process of buying here completely mad but when in Rome... no much you can do. Sadly, I don't think there's much desire to reform the current process either so there you go.

Imagine if you as a buyer pull out last minute and there's a chain and the whole house of cards falls down? I made it clear to the agent and sellers about my dates and then started reducing my offer accordingly.

Go for a walk, look at other properties, there is no much else you can and getting fixated on this property won't do you any good either!

Cakeguts

LadyL2013 wrote: »

It's niot that it no longer suits me, I'm just annoyed that someone is clearly lying about it.


There is no one in the property allegedly. The vendor says the tenant has moved out and they currently rent elsewhere. Now I'm starting to wonder if in fact, the vendors now live in the property.

When you viewed the house was it vacant with no furniture in it? The problem with buying a house with tenants still living in it is that they don't have to leave at the end of their lease or at the end of the notice given by the landlord.

LadyL2013

Also on the Memo of Sale it states that the vendor is 'looking, not yet found'. I phoned the agent when this came through to query it and was again told that it was a mistake and a new one would be sent out to me, which I have yet to receive. Beginning to think that they may have accidentally let slip in that original memo...

LadyL2013

Cakeguts wrote: »

When you viewed the house was it vacant with no furniture in it? The problem with buying a house with tenants still living in it is that they don't have to leave at the end of their lease or at the end of the notice given by the landlord.

No, it had furniture in but we were told that was the vendors furniture as the house came fully furnished to rent but no one was actually living there.

ThePants999

AdrianC wrote: »

The problem appears to be in differing definitions of "chain". You're taking a looser view than they are.

The vendor has postponed an element of their sale because of a delay in an element of their onward purchase. If anyone has a definition of "chain" that doesn't include this situation, it's a silly definition and they should stop using it.

DumbMuscle

Penitent wrote: »

I don't get it. If they don't live in the house, then why can't they sell it to the OP until they've found an onward purchase? Surely it doesn't matter if the OP completes the sale and pays them before they find somewhere else if they aren't living in the house? It would just mean the vendor had the cash sitting in their account when they did find their new house.

Yeah, I had a brainfart there and forgot how money worked...

Cakeguts

It sounds as if something has changed for the vendor because if this was a rented house that they were selling then it wouldn't matter if they had found another house or not

You probably ought to find out exactly what is going on because it sounds as if there my be some crossed wires here.