Vendor impersonated me.... help!

Marvel1

Doozergirl wrote: »

It is our own job to do due diligence on any house and to essentially ignore the vendor in our quest to do that. Nothing has actually changed in the process, only in the mind, because it's an unpleasant thing to do. But no actual harm has been caused - it's all psychological.

The only reason no harm is because the OP saw the notes saying she phoned!!

I know here is an idea, post your personal details here and what companies so we can phone them up and pretend to be you, come on do it.

Cakeguts

If it was me I wouldn't buy this house under any circumstances now. Simply because someone who does something like that must feel no obligation to the person that they are selling to about telling that buyer anything that is the truth.



You wouldn't be able to trust what was on the fittings form because they might tick yes they were leaving it and then replace it with something inferior when they move out and you would never get the truth of the matter because someone who can lie on the phone and pretend to be someone else can also lie about broken appliances needing replacing when they intended to take them with them all the time. If you show the house with expensive furnishings and fittings you can achieve a higher offer than you would have got with the inferior fittings. If you then take them with you and leave behind something much cheaper the buyer doesn't get what he thinks he is paying for. You could move in to find that the built in kitchen appliances have been removed and something to replace them left behind that had been bought cheaply second hand.



What also would put me off is why she is in such a hurry to sell that she will lie to get the sale to go through.



The whole conveyancing thing needs to be done again with really good solicitors because you need to know if she is hiding something about this house that hasn't come to light yet.



If you are going to start from the beginning with the conveyancing and surveys you might want to do them on a different house with an honest vendor.

iammumtoone

Cakeguts wrote: »

What also would put me off is why she is in such a hurry to sell that she will lie to get the sale to go through.
.

This could be anything from they need the money, couple are splitting up and need a clean break, they are about to lose their onward purchase. It could also be as you suspect something wrong with the house and if it was an old house I would also be telling the OP to run for the hills but its a new build so hopefully still under guarantee. There is also the potential for nightmare neighbours hence why it has been suggested the OP does more due diligence if they are still interested.

breaking_free

Cakeguts wrote: »

You wouldn't be able to trust what was on the fittings form because they might tick yes they were leaving it and then replace it with something inferior when they move out. You could move in to find that the built in kitchen appliances have been removed and something to replace them left behind that had been bought cheaply second hand.

^ This times 100, and I say it because this actually happened to me. Got the keys for my new house and was gobsmacked to find that the high-spec washing machine had been replaced by a second hand one with all dials and buttons in French! (I kid thee not) Goodness knows where the vendor found it (this was in Ireland by the way).

FTBAngst

When i phone my solicitor the only things they ask for is the house address! It didn’t bother me before but now I’m quite concerned! What do solicitors ‘normally’ do for security checks?

tom9980

I would not be buying now personally.

I guess the estate agent could make the argument to the seller they are owed a fee for the seller scuppering the sale with their actions. They had a proceed-able buyer and ruined the sale.

Same with the buyer arguing to the court the seller should owe them compensation for their conveyancing fees for scuppering the purchase with their outrageous act.

What a mess.

Doozergirl

Marvel1 wrote: »

The only reason no harm is because the OP saw the notes saying she phoned!!

I know here is an idea, post your personal details here and what companies so we can phone them up and pretend to be you, come on do it.

a) We're dealing with what did happen, not what didn't. What didn't happen is irrelevant. Why do people get so concerned about what could have happened, when it didn't? It's a waste of energy.

b) Are you trying to make yourself look clever by making ridiculous suggestions?

Albala

Doozergirl wrote: »

a) We're dealing with what did happen, not what didn't. What didn't happen is irrelevant. Why do people get so concerned about what could have happened, when it didn't? It's a waste of energy.

b) Are you trying to make yourself look clever by making ridiculous suggestions?

a) So an attempted offence is not worth worrying about if the offender gets caught before they actually do harm? The law disagrees with you on that one. Try to rob a bank, fail, and say it doesn't matter because you didn't succeed and see how far you get. And it isn't clear that nothing did happen to the disadvantage for the buyer. Think about it for a moment, you're experienced with buying and selling. Would it really not affect how you did business with someone at all if just by pure luck you had found out they had impersonated you to your solicitors and tried to put pressure on them to do things contrary to your interests?



b) no, they are pointing out, how ridiculous it is for someone to suggest a major data breach ( getting information out of someone's legal advisor by pretending to be them) isn't a problem.


In the OP's position, I would be thinking very carefully about how much they want the house now, especially if it wan't unique, or it was fairly easy to find an equivalent. In the vendor's house agent's position, I would be sending them my bill (as I had found them a buyer) and ending the relationship. In the vendor's solicitors' position, I would be telling them to find another solicitor.

Marvel1

Doozergirl wrote: »

a) We're dealing with what did happen, not what didn't. What didn't happen is irrelevant. Why do people get so concerned about what could have happened, when it didn't? It's a waste of energy.

b) Are you trying to make yourself look clever by making ridiculous suggestions?

As suspected, guess not then :T

Doozergirl

Albala wrote: »

a) So an attempted offence is not worth worrying about if the offender gets caught before they actually do harm? The law disagrees with you on that one. Try to rob a bank, fail, and say it doesn't matter because you didn't succeed and see how far you get. And it isn't clear that nothing did happen to the disadvantage for the buyer. Think about it for a moment, you're experienced with buying and selling. Would it really not affect how you did business with someone at all if just by pure luck you had found out they had impersonated you to your solicitors and tried to put pressure on them to do things contrary to your interests?



b) no, they are pointing out, how ridiculous it is for someone to suggest a major data breach ( getting information out of someone's legal advisor by pretending to be them) isn't a problem.


In the OP's position, I would be thinking very carefully about how much they want the house now, especially if it wan't unique, or it was fairly easy to find an equivalent. In the vendor's house agent's position, I would be sending them my bill (as I had found them a buyer) and ending the relationship. In the vendor's solicitors' position, I would be telling them to find another solicitor.

At no point have I said that it wasn't a worry. But the purchase is still about the house, not the vendor and due diligence should be done thoroughly *anyway*, not extra work done because the vendor is bonkers. What needs to change is the security around the purchase.

It's precisely the fact that I'm experienced that allows me to focus on what's actually important - the house and the legal process of buying - rather than making a purely emotional response to the vendor.

People are speculating, creating stories about what else might be wrong, but that goes for any house that anyone buys. There's no difference other than the fact that the vendor is a risk - the solicitor needs to deal with that and issue a big fat apology to the OP themselves. I would agree that I would seriously consider a different solicitor and a refund, or at least ask for my case to be upgraded to a named partner in the business to protect the process moving forward.

There is no guarantee that pulling out and choosing a different house will result in a perfect house or a perfect vendor either. This is a wake up call, but the risk always remains the same:

Caveat Emptor