Why Was Our House Taken Off The Market

hazyjo

lisyloo wrote: »

I think you accepted this risk when you accept an offer from someone without a mortgage.

Actually, the risk is accepting someone needing a mortgage. Cash buyer would have been different - and a limited market! They could not have got a mortgage beforehand.

lisyloo wrote: »

I thought (and was told recently here) that offers shouldn't be accepted from people who are not pro-ceedable. I don't know who is correct, but I thought that it was normal to continue to market a property if buyer was not procedable.

You're confused. The buyer was proceedable (presuming they had a complete chain beneath them or were FTBs or no chain beneath them). If they still needed to find a buyer themselves, then they would not be proceedable.

lisyloo wrote: »

I thought this was why mortgage lenders agree to give a mortgage in principle.

No. That is based on their income, their situation, their outgoings, affordability really. They may find a perfect house to buy (unlikely), or they may go for a wreck (or something inbetween). What the lender will lend is dependent on the property they eventually buy. Not necessarily the same figure as when they got the AIP.


Also, it's not as indepth. Some buyers are confused re things like loaned deposits which are generally frowned upon. Their AIP may not be exactly what they will be lent once every box has been ticked and hard credit searches are performed.


(I may not have the correct terminology, but that's the gist.)

ACG

Every time I have bought a house (3 in total), I have made it a condition that it is marked as SSTC once my offer has been accepted. As a buyer I would not risk wasting my time and money buying a house that was still open to offers.

Your buyer probably had a DIP and proof of deposit so the agent has done their job if they have checked those things. But the reality is that a DIP is not worth the paper it is printed on. I could get for myself tomorrow for £500k but I could never get a Mortgage for that amount.

Crashy_Time

Border_Reiver2 wrote: »

We have a house for sale and after advertising it at a high price with no offers forthcoming we decided to drop the price. The estate agent phoned and wrote to tell us that an offer had been put in for the new asking price and would we accept the offer. We accepted the offer and we were informed that the buyer still had to get a mortgage after a valuation. The estate agent then immediately altered the sign and adverts to say that the house was "SOLD stc". Now, 7 weeks later, the buyer has been in touch to say that their mortgage company will not give them a mortgage and they want us to drop the price by a further £20,000 so they can try another mortgage company.
Surely the estate agent should have checked that the buyer had actually got the money before the house was effectively taken off the market. We have lost 7 weeks of time where other potential buyers could have viewed the property and maybe met our asking price.
Any thoughts on this please?

Drop the 20k, it will be less stress in the long run.

AnotherJoe

lisyloo wrote: »

I thought (and was told recently here) that offers shouldn't be accepted from people who are not pro-ceedable. I don't know who is correct, but I thought that it was normal to continue to market a property if buyer was not procedable.

I thought this was why mortgage lenders agree to give a mortgage in principle.

I think you have a misunderstanding of what "not proceedable" means.
The most common meaning is "hasn't sold (STC) their house yet". Or for soemone withouta house to sell but needing a mortgage, "doesnt have a mortgage in principle yet"

It doesn't mean "has not yet been through full mortage approval and valuation"
A mortgage "in principle" is exactly that. In principle. It may not be in practice.

"Many a slip tween cup and lip". There are numerous reasons the buyers may not have been offered the mortgage they thought they would get.