Have I voided my mortgage offer?

G_M

davidmcn wrote: »

Not if the seller has already stomped off in a huff with your deposit and remarketed (or decided to rebuild themselves).

Academic now as the OP has insured.


But surely the buyer seller first has to serve a notice to Complete and wait (2 weeks?) before they can stomp off - or some-such process?


I bow to your superior knowledge in this area as mine is minimal - but I'm interested!

Alexiskitty

G_M wrote: »

OP - did you do the conveyancing yourself or use a solicitor? Did your solicitor also act for te mortgage lender? [/U]

We used a solicitor who is also acting for the mortgage lender but, to put it bluntly, they've been a bit crap. The only advice I got when it came to getting insurance was that they would not do it for us.

chalky_white_2

G_M wrote: »

Yes but at least you'll be able to Complete the purchase of your pile of ashes at a later stage, You'll owe the seller his costs for late Completion, but you will be able to Complete!


OP - did you do the conveyancing yourself or use a solicitor? Did your solicitor also act for te mortgage lender?


Your solicitor should have ensured you got insurance in plce at Exchange. Naughty solicitor!

Insure the property today. Now.

Solicitors have a duty to advise their clients to insure, but there are rarely instructions from a Lender to check insurance is in place.

davidmcn wrote: »

I've never really understood how having buildings insurance will help you - the insurers are hardly likely to settle a claim quickly, so you'd be in default anyway, surely?

Insurance companies act as urgently as necessary. It rarely is urgent, but something like this can have insurers move very quickly to minimise their losses. Often, there will be two insurers (the Seller's and the Buyer's).

Additionally, the Seller also breaches contract by not providing the Property in the condition it was in from the date of exchange.

('Breach' does not mean you can withdraw from a contract automatically)

davidmcn

chalky_white wrote: »

Additionally, the Seller also breaches contract by not providing the Property in the condition it was in from the date of exchange.

Do they? I thought the whole point was that the buyer takes on the risk from exchange.

It all seems a rather unrealistic way of dealing with it - in Scotland we normally provide for either party being able to walk away if there's significant damage before completion.

Smodlet

davidmcn wrote: »

Do they? I thought the whole point was that the buyer takes on the risk from exchange.

It all seems a rather unrealistic way of dealing with it - in Scotland we normally provide for either party being able to walk away if there's significant damage before completion.

From what I have read, heard and otherwise assimilated, davidmcn, housing-wise y'all do everything more sensibly than we wee Southern Sassenachs. Why the heck should anyone have to fork out for insurance for a property they don't actually own yet? Presumably the vendor also has buildings insurance for the same period. Just a scam on the part of insurance companies, ask me. Not that anybody did.

chalky_white_2

davidmcn wrote: »

Do they? I thought the whole point was that the buyer takes on the risk from exchange.

Contractual obligations still exist upon both parties, even where risk is assumed by the Buyer. It just places the Buyer at a disadvantage. However, the Seller sits at a disadvantage prior to exchange, as they are not 'locked' into a Sale.

The Standard Terms and Conditions for Residential Property are designed to create a 'balance' between Buyer and Seller, not to disproportionately benefit one particular side.

Damage to the Property would cause issues, absolutely, but the terms of contract are designed to allow both parties to move forward and resolve the issues (as opposed to them walking away, which will likely leave the Seller with huge issues, particularly when facing an onward purchase).

There will always be issues with any given system, and these can be identified in both the English & Welsh and Scottish systems for transferring land.

Edi81

Wasn’t there an article in the daily mail a couple of weeks ago about a couple where this exact thing happened?

They said their solicitor didn’t explain it to them (probably used a cheapo firm) and then the house flooded or something.

SmashedAvacado

In terms of whether a buyer is obliged to complete if something happens between exchange and completion depends on at what point risk passes to the buyer. The standard position was that risk passes on exchange of contracts. However, many contracts are amended to provide that risk passes only on completion.

Notwithstanding the strongly asserted views above, the position you would be in is wholly dependent on what your contract says (and that includes the conditions and the amendments to such conditions).

Also note that for leasehold property the building is often insured by the landlord so the context of the sale is also important.