is it possible to self conveyance?

lisyloo

You haven’t understood the liability point at all and hence the risks of doing it yourself and I feel are unlikely to take any input on board (so I’ll give up pretty soon).

The doctor has no financial liability.
The loan company are answerable to themselves and their shareholders so they can do what they want within the law.

When a property transfer takes place there is a large liability towards the owners to prevent fraud.

The rules about the ID1 form are set by her majesty’s land registry who won’t profit not from a vested interest group of solicitors.

I would advise you not to do this yourself because as well as not understanding the processes or risks you aren’t doing any of your own research or taking any input on board.

Good luck but my advice is that you’re not up to it (and that’s why we have paid professionals).
I hope that’s taken in the spirit given (to prevent a problem down the line).

ReadingTim

lisyloo wrote: »

You haven’t understood the liability point at all and hence the risks of doing it yourself and I feel are unlikely to take any input on board (so I’ll give up pretty soon).

The doctor has no financial liability.
The loan company are answerable to themselves and their shareholders so they can do what they want within the law.

When a property transfer takes place there is a large liability towards the owners to prevent fraud.

The rules about the ID1 form are set by her majesty’s land registry who won’t profit not from a vested interest group of solicitors.

I would advise you not to do this yourself because as well as not understanding the processes or risks you aren’t doing any of your own research or taking any input on board.

Good luck but my advice is that you’re not up to it (and that’s why we have paid professionals).
I hope that’s taken in the spirit given (to prevent a problem down the line).

The OP can't work out if he's a first time buyer, nor remember he's already asked the question. He's definitely not up to it.

OP - DIY dentistry is a better idea than this one.

danlightbulb

I wont be doing it myself, clearly not going to work. However i still feel all these new checks are overkill forthe vast majority of buyers. Ironically, more likely that foreign buyers are more likely to have fraudulent sources of funds yet i bet their purchases sail through while we have to jump through hoops.

SmashedAvacado

danlightbulb wrote: »

I wont be doing it myself, clearly not going to work. However i still feel all these new checks are overkill forthe vast majority of buyers. Ironically, more likely that foreign buyers are more likely to have fraudulent sources of funds yet i bet their purchases sail through while we have to jump through hoops.

You have little or no understanding of the process.

Its not ironic - because its simply not true. Love a bit of casual xenophobia though

danlightbulb

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

You have little or no understanding of the process.

Its not ironic - because its simply not true. Love a bit of casual xenophobia though

Not the place for this discussion really but I'd imagine it is true to some extent, otherwise articles like this wouldn't exist:


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/17/russian-elite-must-reveal-how-they-paid-for-uk-property-say-mps

Dean000000

!!!!!! you can’t even acertain whether you are a first time buyer or not.

Conveyancing and buying property is not for you my man.

Leave it to the professionals....

Please

danlightbulb

Dean000000 wrote: »

!!!!!! you can’t even acertain whether you are a first time buyer or not.

Conveyancing and buying property is not for you my man.

Leave it to the professionals....

Please

Well thats a bit of an exaggeration. I was trying to find out if there were ways around being labelled as a previous homeowner.

I intend to leave it to the professionals, as ive already said. No harm in asking though, was there? Ive had my answer.

Tom99

I did this on a sell+buy many years ago but in those days the legal costs were much more expensive relative to the price than they are now.
Since you will have to pay a solicitor to act for your mortgage co your total saving is unlikely to amount to more than a few hundred pounds.

davidmcn

Tom99 wrote: »

Since you will have to pay a solicitor to act for your mortgage co your total saving is unlikely to amount to more than a few hundred pounds.

I'm not convinced there'd be any saving on fees - acting solely for a lender, and having to deal with an unrepresented borrower, is probably as much hassle (and more risk) than acting for both.

SmashedAvacado

davidmcn wrote: »

I'm not convinced there'd be any saving on fees - acting solely for a lender, and having to deal with an unrepresented borrower being unrepresented, is probably as much hassle (and more risk) than acting for both.

Correct - in almost all cases, the lender will have a higher standard of what is required than the lay client. As such, the basis of the solicitor's work is based on what the lender wants, not what the buyer wants. There would rarely be a buyer that wanted more than the lender in terms of diligence (unless i suppose they had plans for redevelopment / extensions). From a legal perspective, if the lender is happy, the buyer ought to be happy.